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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Justify the use of opaque URIs for profiles #663

Closed
nicholascar opened this issue Jan 15, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Justify the use of opaque URIs for profiles #663

nicholascar opened this issue Jan 15, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees
@nicholascar
Labels
due for closing Issue that is going to be closed if there are no objection within 6 days feedback Issues stemming from external feedback to the WG profile-negotiation
Milestone
Conneg 2PWD

Comments

@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor

From Gregg Kellogg via the W3C JSON-LD CG:

There certainly is a conversation on the difference between the profile parameter, and Accept-Profile header, which looks like a good direction for you, IMHO. It would be useful to be able to content-negotiate over this; an opaque frame URL is not helpful, as it would be challenging to know what it meant if it wasn’t registered. We came down on the use of the profile parameter to specify registered profiles, that may imply specific contexts or frames to be used as part of the profile specification. Of course, the profile URI could, itself, be used to returned the context or frame.
@nicholascar nicholascar added profile-negotiation feedback Issues stemming from external feedback to the WG labels Jan 15, 2019
@nicholascar nicholascar added this to the Conneg 2PWD milestone Jan 15, 2019
@larsgsvensson larsgsvensson mentioned this issue Jan 15, 2019
Closed
@nicholascar nicholascar changed the title Defend the use of opaque URIs for profiles Justify the use of opaque URIs for profiles Jan 17, 2019
@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Subgroup meeting 2019-02-14 noted that it looks like there's much difference between the JSON-LD @context section & the information you might get from a profile, potentially described using the Profiles Ontology.

@nicholascar nicholascar self-assigned this Feb 13, 2019
@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor Author

This Issue depends on an answer to Issue #662

@larsgsvensson
Copy link
Contributor

#662 has now been resolved and closed. @nicholascar: is there anything left to do here?

@larsgsvensson larsgsvensson added the due for closing Issue that is going to be closed if there are no objection within 6 days label Mar 14, 2019
@nicholascar
Copy link
Contributor Author

@larsgsvensson we just need to communicate results from this and 662 to Gregg Kellogg so i’ll close after replying to all points in his email.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@nicholascar nicholascar

Labels
due for closing Issue that is going to be closed if there are no objection within 6 days feedback Issues stemming from external feedback to the WG profile-negotiation
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Conneg 2PWD
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@larsgsvensson @nicholascar