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

There need to be an http-based mechanism to point to representations conforming to other profiles [ID30] (5.30) #266

Closed
nicholascar opened this issue Jun 27, 2018 · 8 comments
Labels
content-negotiation plenary-approved requirement requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary)

Comments

@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor

nicholascar commented Jun 27, 2018

Original wording: "Return http link headers using the following relationship types... [ID30] (5.30)"

Entered from Google Doc

  • derivedfrom: The URL of the source document, containing the ISO 19139 records.
  • profile: The URI of the metadata schema used in the returned document.
  • self: The URL of the document returned by the API.
  • alternate: The URL of the current document, encoded in an alternative serialization.
@nicholascar nicholascar added requirement profile-guidance requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary) labels Jun 27, 2018
@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Lars' rewording suggestion: There needs to be a way to encode the necessary relations using an http link header

@nicholascar nicholascar changed the title Requirement: Return http link headers using the following relationship types... [ID30] (5.30) Return http link headers using the following relationship types... [ID30] (5.30) Sep 1, 2018
@nicholascar nicholascar added profiles-vocabulary For discussion of profile description vocabulary and removed profile-guidance labels Oct 8, 2018
@larsgsvensson
Copy link
Contributor

This feels more like a solution than a requirement. A req could be: "There need to be an http-based mechanism to point to representations conforming to other profiles". Using Link-headers could be a way of implementing that.

@nicholascar nicholascar changed the title Return http link headers using the following relationship types... [ID30] (5.30) There need to be an http-based mechanism to point to representations conforming to other profiles Oct 24, 2018
@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Changed as per Lar's suggesting with the original wording indicated in the description

@aisaac
Copy link
Contributor

aisaac commented Oct 25, 2018

I think we should still (as part of the requirement derived from 5.30) list the "necessary relations": URL of the source document, etc (so, keeping the feature but removing the http link header that was suggested as solution)

@aisaac aisaac changed the title There need to be an http-based mechanism to point to representations conforming to other profiles There need to be an http-based mechanism to point to representations conforming to other profiles [ID30] (5.30) Oct 25, 2018
@aisaac
Copy link
Contributor

aisaac commented Dec 16, 2018

Just a note to clarify that my emphasis on the fact that there should be a focus on possible relations comes from my reading of the Google doc of our discussions

@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor Author

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

@nicholascar nicholascar added content-negotiation and removed profiles-vocabulary For discussion of profile description vocabulary labels Aug 18, 2019
@andrea-perego
Copy link
Contributor

@aisaac , @larsgsvensson , @nicholascar , @rob-metalinkage ,

Based on the discussion, it seems that this issue is about ConnegP and/or PROF, and that it has been addressed in both.

Should we close it?

@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, I think this is dealt with in ConnegP and the Alternate Representations data model ref in ConnegP. It's actually outside PROF's concerns as PROF only IDs and described the profiles.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
content-negotiation plenary-approved requirement requires discussion Issue to be discussed in a telecon (group or plenary)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants