JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  June 2015

DC-ARCHITECTURE June 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: [RDF AP] Discussion on LOD list on Linked Data Profiles

From:

"Svensson, Lars" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:50:00 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (213 lines)

Antoine,

On Tuesday, June 02, 2015 5:22 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> Thanks for the offer! It would be great.
> 
> the idea would be to register your story and requirement in our database at
> http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/
> So that it eventually appears as an official DC requirement.
> For this we need a requirement in the database, a use case that requires it, and
> a case study that motives the use case.
> 
> [1] is currently described by [2] as a "case study", but I believe it's not really
> one ([1] looks rather like a requirement with a candidate solution). The real
> business case is probably the one at
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/KIM-recommendations
> 
> I see that the KIM-recommendations is already in our database as a case study
> so we're good:
> http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=CS-5-DINI-AG-
> KIM-RDF-REPRESENTATION-OF-BIBLIOGRAPHIC-DATA

Fine!

> What we'd need now is a generic description of the use case. Something like:
> [
> Title: Accessing data about a resource according to a specific profile
> Description:
> For a same resource (URI), various RDF descriptions are available,
> corresponding to different application profiles.
> A Linked Data consuming service accesses these different descriptions using the
> same URI for the resource, by specifying which profiles he wants to get the
> data according to.
> For example ....
> ]

OK, here's a try for the use case:

[[
Title: Accessing information about an entity according to a specific profile
Description:
In RDF, entities identified by a URI can be described in several different ways using different application profiles. One example is a bibliographic unit (e.g. "KIM-DINI-Technology-Watch-Report" [1] for which the DNB serves metadata in the DINI-KIM profile [2] and in the BIBFRAME profile [3]). A client harvesting data for a bibliographic database that exchanges data in BIBFRAME needs a way to specify that it wants the bibliographic information for [1] in the BIBFRAME profile, whereas another service specialising on data collection within the German speaking part of the world might prefer the DINI-KIM profile.

[1] http://d-nb.info/985906677
[2] http://d-nb.info/985906677/about/lds
[3] http://d-nb.info/985906677/about/bibframe 
]]

> And then a requirement, like:
> [
> Title: Serving different data profiles depending on client request
> Description:
> Linked Data content negotiation recipes are updated/extended so that for a
> same resource URI, it is possible to serve different descriptions depending on
> the application profiles a client is interested in (as specified by an URI).
> Possible solutions are described at
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RFC-6906-Profiles
> ] 

[[
Title: Describing application profiles
Description: Application profiles need to have unique identifiers so that they can be referenced by different applications. These identifiers SHOULD be URIs that dereference to a machine-readable description of the profile.
]]

[[
Title: Serving different data profiles depending on client request
Description: Clients and servers need a way to negotiate which profile to use for a specific URI. This negotiation is orthogonal to content-type negotiation and language negotiation. (Note on terminology: The term "profile" in this requirement is used in the sense of "application profile". This is similar (equivalent?) to what the W3C data shape WG call a "shape". Another term used by Henry Story is "crystallisation" [1].)
There are several potential solutions to this. One is to extend the use of profile as specified in RFC 6906 [2] where "a profile can be   described as additional semantics that can be used to process a resource representation, such as constraints, conventions, extensions, or any other aspects that do not alter the basic media type semantics. A profile MUST NOT change the semantics of the resource representation when processed without profile knowledge, so that clients both with and without knowledge of a profiled resource can safely use the same representation." The http Accept-header allows the client to add a profile specification to the media type, thus allowing the use of q-values. Since only JSON-LD and XHTML allow the specification of a profile together with the media type this possibility probably does not satisfy the requirement.

Another possibility is to use the http Link-header to specify the requested profile. The client would set a Link-header referencing the preferred profile. If the server can serve the requested profile it answers with a 200 response code and sets the Link header pointing to the same profile that the client requested. If the server cannot serve the requested profile, it can either answer with 406 (Not acceptable) or with 200 OK linking to the profile used. The Link-header does not allow the use of q-values. An example:

Client request:

GET /some/resource HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/rdf+xml
Link: <http://example.com/profiles/complicated>; rel="profile"

Server responses:
1) Server can serve the requested profile

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-type: application/rdf+xml
Link: <http://example.com/profiles/complicated>; rel="profile" 

2) Server cannot serve the requested profile and blocks the request

HTTP/1.1 406 Not acceptable
Content-type: application/xhtml+xml

<h1>406 Not acceptable</h1>
<p>This server cannot supply the profile http://example.com/profiles/complicated. Try with http://example.com/profiles/medium or http://example.com/profiles/simple instead.</p>

3) Server cannot serve the requested profile and returns another instead:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-type: application/rdf+xml
Link: <http://example.com/profiles/simple>; rel="profile"

A third possibility is to introduce a new http header: Accept-profile (or Accept-shape). This new header has the same semantics as Accept and can be used with q-values etc. The profile name can be either a value from a controlled vocabulary (probably an IANA registry) or a URI. An example:

Client request:

GET /some/resource HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/rdf+xml
Accept-profile: complicated # complicated is registered in IANA as http://example.com/profiles#complicated

Server responses:
1) Server can serve the requested profile

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-type: application/rdf+xml
Profile: complicated

2) Server cannot serve the requested profile and blocks the request

HTTP/1.1 406 Not acceptable
Content-type: application/xhtml+xml

<h1>406 Not acceptable</h1>
<p>This server cannot supply the profile http://example.com/profiles/complicated. Try with http://example.com/profiles/medium or http://example.com/profiles/simple instead.</p>

3) Server cannot serve the requested profile and returns another instead:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-type: application/rdf+xml
Profile: simple # simple is registered in IANA as http://example.com/profiles#simple

[1] https://blogs.oracle.com/bblfish/entry/crystalizing_rdf
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6906

]]

Would that work? 

Best,

Lars
 
> On 5/26/15 11:12 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> > Antoine
> >
> >> Thanks for the answer!
> >>
> >> June 18 would be alright.
> >
> > OK, then I'll try to put something together until that call.
> >
> >> As far as I can tell the group doesn't have an official input on your question.
> >> Truth is, there was no champion for making that issue explicit - or it was
> >> forgotten in the maelstrom of new requirements that came after and/or
> >> merged with them.
> >
> > At least it was documented... [1] , but yes, there is no hint that we actually
> _did_ something of that user story [2]. I definitely confess that I haven't been
> very active in the group and also have not really looked after my use case.
> >
> >> This is indeed quite ironic, given the original context for the group's
> creation.
> >> But if you submit some description of the case, we'd be certainly happy to
> >> oblige add it to our lists!
> >
> > I'd be happy to oblige. What exactly do I need to do?
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RFC-6906-Profiles
> > [2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php?title=RDF-Application-
> Profiles#Use_Cases_and_Requirements
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Lars
> >
> >> On 5/22/15 10:31 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> >>> Hi Antoine,
> >>>
> >>>> In the past two weeks there's been a discussion about Linked Data Profiles
> >> on
> >>>> the W3C public linked open data list:
> >>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2015May/thread.html
> >> ("Profiles
> >>>> in Linked Data")
> >>>>
> >>>> It looks relevant, and it's a very long thread!
> >>>
> >>> Yes I started that thread with the goal of finding consensus on how clients
> and
> >> servers can negotiate profiles (or shapes or whatever-we-prefer-to-call-
> them).
> >> The use case I have is the provision of bibliographic data in several
> "profiles", e.
> >> g. BIBFRAME, RDA/FRBR, etc. There hasn't been a clear answer yet...
> >>>
> >>>> Lars, you have started it, would it be possible for you to report on it in one
> of
> >>>> the coming bi-weekly calls of the RDF AP group?
> >>>
> >>> I could present/report on June 18 if that is a suitable date. June 4 is a public
> >> holiday in this part of Germany so I shall not be able to attend that meeting.
> >>>
> >>>> At the call today, we were quite curious to hear whether you think there's
> >>>> something we should do!
> >>>
> >>> If I remember correctly, Kai kicked off this working group after my
> >> presentation at SWIB in 2013 where I mentioned the need for profile
> >> negotiation, so perhaps I should ask the wg members if you have any input!
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Lars
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2024
January 2024
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager