W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: random comments on 2nd LC of WebArch (resources/representations)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:37:37 -0500
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1093037857.24652.239.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 08:46, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
> A few  points I noted while skimming through 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/

2nd main point seems to be...

> Resources/Representations
> - section 3.1 has 
> "The term Information Resource refers to resources that convey
> information. Any resource that has a representation is an information
> resource"
>  This makes several assumptions that it would be nice to explicit and
> explain:
>  * a resource having a representation implies that it conveys
> information
>  * is the set of Information Resources exactly the set of resources that
> have a representation? of does it strictly include it?
>  * the wording "a resource conveys" seems slippery;
>  * since Resources can be anything, I assume they can be Representation
> of resources, and thus representation of themselves; I have the feeling
> this may lead to paradoxes but haven't fully investigated it; maybe
> Resources and Representations should be in a different domain of
> discourse?
>  * if a resource R identified by the URI http://example.org/foo has 2
> representations in conneg, GETtable at http://example.org/foo.xml and
> http://example.org/foo.html, is there any relationship between
> http://example.org/foo, http://example.org/foo.html and
> http://example.org/foo.xml? if so, which? 
> - in 3.3.1, "One cannot carry out an HTTP POST operation using a URI
> that identifies a secondary resource." this seems very HTTP-specific;
> any chance this refers to something broader? Otherwise, I suggest it
> should belong to the HTTP spec, not to WebArch.
> - in 3.3.2, "HTTP is an example of a protocol that enables
> representation providers to use content negotiation."; are there any
> other protocol with an associated URI scheme that allows such a thing?
> If so, I suggest to add it as an example.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 21:37:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:47 UTC