Re: [dxwg] There needs to be metadata about the views provided by profiles (“named collections of properties”) that can included in a http header [ID5] (5.5)

Profile negotiation requires an identifier for the profile to be passed from client to server, and from some source of metadata (such as the server itself) to the client (either at run-time or at some prior configuration step).

With MIME encoding based negotiation, tokens are registered at IANA

There will be potentially many more profiles across application domains than distinct encodings, as profiles are simple content rules scoped to communities of practice, whereas encodings require software clients to be implemented.

Use of URIs as profile identifiers is necessary for discovery of details - so such URIs are available as tokens for content negotiation.

This has some drawbacks however - URIs are hard to encode in query strings, and if a server supports many profiles it may be a burden for humans to read a large set (for example to choose an option). 

One option is to use CURIE syntax prefix:token in which case this would be sematically equivalent to the full URI form. This would require the server implementation to be willing to advertise prefixes it understands, or clients to specify prefix assumptions and to match either full URI or CURIE forms.

there may also be a default prefix, and a global registry of well known profiles - in which case the profile negotiation specification should perhaps declare the default prefix namespace.

IMHO this should be discussed at F2F, taking advantge of joint session with JSON-LD team who are looking at "framing"[1]  which is an allied (but perhaps not identical) concept 



GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2018 06:40:04 UTC