W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2010

Re: A question - use 301 instead of 406?

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:22:25 -0700
Message-ID: <303afa281003240922p5ea77adbo110c78127978ccba@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Nathan,

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > Secondly, the semantics of your descriptions resource are unclear.  Is it
> an
> > information resource or not?  Is it a conceptual set of all of the
> formats
> > of the descriptions of the original resource? If so, shouldn't it have
> its
> > own description?  If it's not that, what is it? If it is, how do you
> > negotiate for which format you want the description of the set to be in,
> > rather than the item from the set?
>
> disagree (but also get your point and disagree in the nicest way
> possible); neither the html document or the rdf are the description. the
> description is a different thing entirely which is contained by either
> the html document or the rdf document.
>


To see if I understand: you're explicitly modeling the abstract concept of
the description as its own resource?

For example, Lord of the Rings: Tolkien's idea (a non information resource)
would be
    description/Tokien-LotR-Idea
and then two information resources that contain that idea would be
    data/Pete-Jackson-Movies
and
    data/Unwin-Allen-Edition-Book

Is there a significant advantage to doing this, rather than following the
existing 303 convention and just collapsing the concept and instances
together?

Rob
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 16:23:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:25 UTC