W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Naming

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:53:02 -0700
Message-ID: <003201bfb90d$e2bf8960$83b11eac@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> Careful; you got an *entity body* of type image/png, not a resource.
> The resource identified by http://www.w3.org/Icons/WWW/w3c_main
> has state that's subject to change by the W3C webmaster, and
> you didn't get all that; you cannot, for example, locally simulate
> its behaviour indefinitely.
> What you get back from a GET request to a resource is not, in general,
> resource identified by any URI that you can discover; you get back
> content;
> an 'entity body' in the HTTP spec terminology.
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec1.html#sec1.3

The term 'entity-body' is actually quite bad because it doesn't really
say anything but HTTP enherited it from MIME. The W3C WD "Web
Characterization Terminology & Definitions Sheet"


attempts to clarify the definition by calling it a "Resource


compared to a "Resource"


However, I think it got it wrong (blaming myself) in defining a client:


where it leans towards the interpretation that a client in some cases
(like a mail client) actually gets the resource rather than the
manifestation. However, this complication isn't needed as it is
consistent to say that "you can *never* get to a resource, only the
resource manifestation" as it is easier to define the email case in
terms of this than complicating the model.

Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 12:53:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:29 UTC