The standard stuff:
An -functor between -categories is 0-surjective if is an epimorphism.
For , the functor is -surjective if the universal morphism
to the pullback in
coming from the commutativity of the square
(which commutes due to the functoriality axioms of ) is an epimorphism.
If you interpret and as sets and take ‘epimorphim’ in a strict sense (the sense in Set, a surjection), then you have a strictly -surjective functor. But if you interpret and as -categories or -groupoids and take ‘epimorphism’ in a weak sense (the homotopy sense from -Grpd), then you have an essentially -surjective functor; equivalently, project and to -equivalence-classes before testing surjectivity. A functor is essentially -surjective if and only if it is equivalent to some strictly -surjective functor, so essential -surjectivity is the non-evil notion.
For and categories we have
An -functor is -surjective for precisely if it has the right lifting property with respect to the inclusion of the boundary of the -globe into the -globe.
One recognizes the similarity to situation for geometric definition of higher category. A morphism of simplicial sets is an acyclic fibration with respect to the model structure on simplicial sets if it all diagrams
have a lift
for all , where now is the -simplex.
With respect to the folk model structure on -categories an -functor is
an acyclic fibration? if it is -surjective for all ;
a weak equivalence if it is essentially -surjective for all . See also equivalence of categories.
All this has close analogs in other models of higher structures, in particular in the context of simplicial sets. Simplicial maps which are -surjective for all are called hypercovers.
The general idea of -surjectivity is described around definition 4 of
The concrete discussion in the context of strict omega-categories is in
For the analogous discussion for simplicial sets see
and references given there.