W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: Clarification of URI vs. resource

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:28:05 PST
To: <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "WEBDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001be07d5$6d8ae440$aa66010d@copper.parc.xerox.com>
It's hard to tell if you've addressed the problem without seeing the
whole thing. The main thing to watch out for, of course, are those
places where the spec talks about "the URI of a resource", since
you've gone down the road of "a resource can have more than one URI".

For example -- just perusing quickly --

> Collection - A resource that contains a set of URIs, termed member URIs,
> which identify member resources and meets the requirements in section 5 of
> this specification.

So a 'collection' is a 'resource', not a 'uri'.

> Internal Member URI - A Member URI that is immediately relative to the URI
> of the collection (the definition of immediately relative is given in
> section 5.2).

But you say _the_ URI of the collection.

Note that later, you say:

> An internal member URI MUST be
> immediately relative to the base URI of the collection.  That is, the
> internal member URI is equal to the containing collection's URI plus an
> additional segment for non-collection resources, or additional segment
plus
> trailing slash "/" for collection resources, where segment is defined in
> section 3.3 of [RFC2396].

If I have a collection with
URIs  http://server1.company.com/collection and also
http://server1.company.com/COLLECTION, then is
http://server1.company.com:80/Collection/frob an 'internal member'?
Since it's URI is _not_ equal to the containing collection's URI
plus an additional segment?

I don't think the problem is unsolvable, but you need some way of
determining
the 'canonical for the purpose of determining immediate containment' of
a URI if you follow along this model.

To clarify, I am not speaking 'as the chair of the HTTP working group',
but as an 'interested party to someone who tried to implement WebDAV with
multiple URIs per resource'.


> Any given internal member URI MUST only belong to the collection once,
i.e.,
> it is illegal to have multiple instances of the same URI in a collection.
> Properties defined on collections behave exactly as do properties on
> non-collection resources.

Do you really mean 'the same URI' or do you mean URIs for the same resource?
If http://foo.com/bar/blah and http://foo.com/bar/BLAH are two URIs for
the same resource, can both of them belong separately to the
http://foo.com/bar/ collection?


I haven't reviewed the rest of the proposed changes.

Larry
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 1998 04:28:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:48 GMT