- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:46:34 -0800
- To: "'Gregory J. Woodhouse'" <gjw@wnetc.com>
- Cc: "'Daniel W. Connolly'" <connolly@beach.w3.org>, "'Jim Whitehead'" <ejw@rome.ICS.UCI.EDU>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
>Should it be made explicit that it might be necessary to edit different >representations of the same reource separately? > >[Yaron Goland] This is causing a lot of confusion. So I have included the >following definition: representation "An entity included with a response that is subject to content negotiation... There may exist multiple representations associated with a particular response status." - [HTTP11] Each of these representations is potentially subject to individual modification. > >> The key here is that we are not just talking about an entity, we are >> talking about a content negotiated entity. I have removed all references to >> entity and replaced them with representation. >> >You mean negotiable representation of a resource. I know I'm being pedantic >but entities are parts of messages. > >[Yaron Goland] You are being pedantic but you are also right. As Henrik >pointed out, getting the language right is critical. If I make screw ups like >the above in the document I hope you will point them out because then I can >fix them. > >> >> >I think of merge as an asymmetric operation which does not produce a new >resource (though a new version o an existing resource). To illustate, if A >and B are tables with the same scheme, mergeing B into A replaces A with a >table containing all relations present in either A or B. This would be >different from a JOIN which would produce an entirely new table. >[...] > >[Yaron Goland] This is an excellent point. merge A merge is the process whereby a resource has information from other resources folded into it. Merges can occur at the client or the server. >
Received on Thursday, 31 October 1996 17:48:13 UTC