Dxwg: CONNEG: Reference to WFS3

[andrea-perego]

I don't remember if any reference has been made to WFS3 in relation to profile negotiation:

https://rawcdn.githack.com/opengeospatial/WFS_FES/3.0.0-draft.1/docs/17-069.html

Notably, in Section 10 (Media Types), WFS3 makes use of a profile param in the HTTP headers / quoting:

JSON media types that would typically be used in a WFS that supports JSON are

• application/geo+json for feature collections and features, and
• application/json for all other resources.

XML media types that would typically occur in a WFS that supports XML are

• application/gml+xml;version=3.2 for any GML 3.2 feature collections and features,
• application/gml+xml;version=3.2;profile=http://www.opengis.net/def/profile/ogc/2.0/gml-sf0 for GML 3.2 feature collections and features conforming to the GML Simple Feature Level 0 profile,
• application/gml+xml;version=3.2;profile=http://www.opengis.net/def/profile/ogc/2.0/gml-sf2 for GML 3.2 feature collections and features conforming to the GML Simple Feature Level 2 profile, and
• application/xml for all other resources.

The typical HTML media type for all "web pages" in a WFS would be text/html.

The media type for an OpenAPI definition in JSON is application/openapi+json;version=3.0.

/cc @cportele

[cportele]

The profile parameter is discussed in the media type definition of GML (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/gml+xml) and is consistent with RFC 6906, which is discussed in the conneg by profile draft.

[andrea-perego]

Thanks, @cportele . I guess I misunderstood then: this is the standard profile parameter used to specify the "profile" of the current resource, and not to request a specific profile.

Is there anything in WFS3 that is related to profile negotiation, and/or you think it is worth including in the CONNEG spec? I mean, something similar to the outputSchema parameter in CSW.

[rob-metalinkage]

relates to #662 - we have attempted to distinguish these issues. If a WFS3 based example around use of outputSchema (as opposed to outputFormat) is available we will consider it as an example of Query String base negotiation - if there is a way to list options and schemas wont be further profiled in practice.

[cportele]

Yes, we have ignored profile negotiation aspects for now and only use the media type etc. as foreseen by HTTP. The idea is to maybe add such capabilities once there is a more broadly accepted practice, but this will always be outside of the core spec.

[andrea-perego]

Thanks, @cportele . So, we are not going to point to WFS3 for the moment.

I think this issue can be closed.

[larsgsvensson]

Since @andrea-perego as the creator of the issue thinks it can be closed, I guess it's safe to add "due-for-closing"