- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:42:03 +0000
- To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Cc: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Andrea, On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:26 AM, Andrea Perego wrote: > >> > [snip] > >> > > >> > much agreed, but I'd turn it around: > >> > Spatiotemporal data must be processable independently from their format > >> (while > >> > recognizing that the amount of metadata available in each format varies). > >> > >> I tend to agree. But it's unclear to me how this will be implemented, > >> in practice. E.g., would this require that applications should be able > >> to consume spatial data irrespective of their format? > > > > Is the requirement that client and server need to be able to negotiate the > format? If so, what exactly is the format. I guess it's not the media-type (e. g. > RDF/XML, Turtle, ...) but something more like an RDF Shape [1]. I think we need > to interact with the W3C data shape WG on this. There has been some > discussion on shape negotiation on the LOD list [2] that I sparked off a few > weeks ago, but there has been no consensus on the matter yet. > > Good point, Lars. The inability to negotiate the "profile" is > definitely one of the gaps to be addressed. But my proposal was less > ambitious, and was just about basic HTTP conneg (so, media types). If > this is not enabled, it would be difficult to get to more > sophisticated features. OK. So does this mean that we have two different requirements for content negotiation? 1) Media type negotiation (Accept-/Content-Type-header) 2) Profile/Shape/Whatever negotiation (No consensus on how to do that yet...) Best, Lars > PS: I've been following the "profile" thread you started with the > greatest interest. :)
Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 18:42:35 UTC