- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 08:32:30 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
OK let's try to close this. As per the discussions in July and the vote on the definition of "profiles" (#963), it appears that "our" definition (meaning the WG definition) is focused on "data profiles". So the scope of the issue becomes thus to agree that 1 and 2 in the descriptions are not [data profiles](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/963#issuecomment-529540738). However I'm still unsure whether that solves the matter, especially 1 seems hard to handle. The problem is that we have different notions of "structure" and "semantics". Btw this is also why this ticket was also created, i.e. attempting to use counter-examples so as to avoid producing our own definitions of these very ambiguous terms. Anyway let's try to see if we can agree... The [discussion we had with the JSON-LD group](https://www.w3.org/2018/10/26-dxwg-minutes#x06) lead to the conclusion that "our" data profiles are media independent. So JSON-LD profiles would be out of scope. In terms of Conneg as @larsgsvensson put it in [this comment](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/662#issuecomment-468726819), JSON-LD profiles are usable for the profile parameter in `Accept`, but not for the `Accept-profile`. I see also this in the Conneg spec [in this section](https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#related-http). If we all agree on this then we're ok, since "our" (again, that means DXWG's) "data profiles" are these for which we propose to use `Accept-profile`. Everyone ok with this? -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/976#issuecomment-534453415 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2019 08:32:31 UTC