Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enable the ability to negotiate the data profile via http, similar to the negotiation of data formats today. [ID30] (5.30) #265

Open
nicholascar opened this issue Jun 27, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

5 participants
@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 27, 2018

Entered from Google Doc

@nicholascar nicholascar changed the title Requirement: Enable the ability to negotiate the metadata profile via http, similar to the negotiation of metadata formats today. [ID30] (5.30) Enable the ability to negotiate the metadata profile via http, similar to the negotiation of metadata formats today. [ID30] (5.30) Sep 1, 2018

@aisaac aisaac changed the title Enable the ability to negotiate the metadata profile via http, similar to the negotiation of metadata formats today. [ID30] (5.30) Enable the ability to negotiate the metadata profile via http, similar to the negotiation of data formats today. [ID30] (5.30) Oct 25, 2018

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Oct 25, 2018

Oct 24 2018: changed metadata to data

@aisaac aisaac changed the title Enable the ability to negotiate the metadata profile via http, similar to the negotiation of data formats today. [ID30] (5.30) Enable the ability to negotiate the data profile via http, similar to the negotiation of data formats today. [ID30] (5.30) Oct 25, 2018

@nicholascar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jan 8, 2019

I think this is more a Profile Guidance issue than it is a Profile Conneg one. At the conneg level, there's no distinction (for clients and servers) between data & metadata profiling but there certainly is/will be in Guidance.

@kcoyle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 9, 2019

@nicholascar I read this as the basic use case for content negotiation - negotiate (via http) based on profile, and I assumed that "data formats" = mime types.

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 9, 2019

I think I would second @kcoyle 's reading. In the original use case (Standard APIs for metadata profile negotiation [ID30]) the idea is that (DCAT-level) metadata about datasets can be obtained in different profiles. Which sounds like the basic motivation for negotiation by profile.

@nicholascar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jan 10, 2019

OK, accepting the 'base case', do we need to do anything here then just yet? Do we perhaps indicate that this is a requirement on Profile Guidance and that Profile Guidance delegates the details to the Profile Conneg doc?

@aisaac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 10, 2019

@nicholascar this sounds like a good approach. In general I like the idea of the Profile Guidance serving as entry points to the other Profiles documents.

@nicholascar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Apr 11, 2019

De-tagging as profile-negotiation as dealt with by its point of view

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.