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

Re: Representation of a secondary resource?

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:27:03 +0100
Message-ID: <41812BE7.4020000@hp.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-webarch-comments@w3.org

Hello Jacek,

I think that these are questions of degree... wrt to what is the general 
rule and what is the exception. I have come to the conclusion that 
Webarch says just about as much as it can on the topic, and I couldn't 
really call the generality one way or the other. I was hoping that you 
might see it that way too and that I could peruade you to say that you 
could live with the text as it is in our current editors draft of 
Webarch at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041026/.

Can you indicate whether or not you can live with what is there? Thanks.

Cheers

Stuart
--
Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>Stuart,
>
>thanks for writing it up. I just want the TAG to fill what I perceive as
>a hole in AWWW regarding the representations of resources identified
>with fragment identifiers.
>
>Your observation is acute but I believe it's an exception to the text
>I'd include. In effect, maybe extending (and perhaps softening) of the
>text to be included in 2.6 would do:
>
>        "In general there is no direct way to retrieve a representation
>        of a secondary resource using a URI with fragment ID, but in
>        some cases a process may be available for producing the
>        representation of the secondary resource from a representation
>        of the primary resource, which would be specified in the
>        relevant media type specification; see 3.2.1."
>
>As for those internal references, I'd only add reference from 3.1.1 to
>3.2.1 and note in 3.1.1 that it doesn't in any way illustrate a
>situation where the URI of the resource contains a fragment ID. Backward
>reference to 2.6 would IMO be unnecessary.
>
>Further, this all would be greatly helped by an example, for example
>having an XML (application/xml) document at
>http://example.org/people.xml:
>
><people>
>  <person id="john">
>    <name>John Doe</name>
>    ...
>  </person>
>  <person id="jane">
>    <name>Jane Smith</name>
>    ...
>  </person>
></people>
>
>The application/xml serialization of the element with the ID "john"
>together with its content is the representation of the resource with the
>URI http://example.org/people.xml#john
>
>Or perhaps in HTML the same representation but with a different starting
>viewpoint is the representation of the secondary resource.
>
>These examples may well be contentious though, so you may ignore them
>happily. 8-)
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jacek
>
>On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 15:52, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
>  
>
>>Hello Dan,
>>
>>I have been chatting with Jacek, I guess the net of it is that there is
>>still something that he wants/needs us to do to satisfy his comment.
>>
>>As I understand it Jacek's principle concern is that we very clearly set
>>expectations about whether it is possible to retrieve directly
>>representations of a resource that is secondary with respect to a given
>>URI. I think that he has 'grok'ed the secondary/primary are not classes
>>of resource but a relation between resources wrt to a single URI.
>>
>>I think that Jacek would be satisfied with the inclusion in 2.6 of words
>>to the effect of:
>>
>>	"In general it is not possible to directly retrieve a
>>representation of a secondary resource using a URI with fragmentID."
>>
>>He's also requested some internal cross referencing between 3.1.1
>>(making it clear that the example there does not elaborate on the use of
>>fragIds) and either or both sections 3.2.1 and 2.6.
>>
>>
>>Personnally I'm mixed about whether we need to say more than we say in
>>"2.6 Fragment Identifiers": I think:
>>
>>	"The secondary resource may be some portion or subset of 
>>	the primary resource, some view on representations of 
>>	the primary resource, or some other resource defined or 
>>	described by those representations."
>>
>>provides some scope to construe that in somecases the representation of
>>a secondary resource is some part of the representation of the primary
>>resource. This makes me reticent about making the more general statement
>>Jacek is seeking - because in some cases there is an effective procedure
>>that would yield a representation of a secondary resource.
>>
>>Jacek... we didn't discuss this when we spoke, but I'm wondering if that
>>observation I've just made above would be sufficient for you to be able
>>to 'live-with' the current wording (and maybe the additional
>>cross-referencing.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Stuart
>>--
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org] 
>>>Sent: 27 October 2004 13:53
>>>To: Dan Connolly
>>>Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org; Stuart Williams
>>>Subject: Re: Representation of a secondary resource?
>>>
>>>On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 14:47, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>I believe a reference from 3.1 (or 3.1.1) to "details of handling 
>>>>>URIs with fragment identifiers, IOW getting representation for 
>>>>>secondary resources" pointing to 3.2.1 could solve this, in case 
>>>>>that's the way of getting to a representation of a resource via
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>its 
>>    
>>
>>>>>secondary resource identifier (URI with fragID).
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>No, that's not a way of getting a representation of such a resource.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Dan,
>>>
>>>in this case I'll be satisfied if section 3.1.1 mentions that 
>>>it excludes URIs with fragIDs and section 2.6 notes that this 
>>>document doesn't inform the reader on getting representations 
>>>for secondary resources, if indeed they have any.
>>>
>>>Thanks for the patience with me,
>>>
>>>Jacek
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 17:27:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:33 GMT