W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:30:38 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBB1C@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
> Sent: 12 February, 2003 12:53
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)
> I think there's some merit in Patricks proposal, and also in Seariths 
> (and I think another earlier one?) but I think there are a couple of 
> fairly serious problems with the proposal as it stands,
> * It requires a new request method, or overloading of an existing one.

True. But there is benefit in the new set of methods as they
keep distinct the "representation" centric view of the Web
from the "knowledge" centric view of the Semantic Web.

Representations and knowledge should be keep separate.

> * It doesn't address TimBLs "meta meta" problem.

Not true. MGET has no "meta meta" problem.

> I think, tho', that there's a slight variation on this scheme which 
> fixes both problems. Rather than a new request method we could 
> introduce a new request header (call it Meta:) which can be 
> added as a 
> qualifier to an existing HTTP request. Servers which recognize the 
> qualifier can respond with metadata corresponding to the request, and 
> supply a distinct URI for the metadata itself via the 
> Content-Location 
> response header.

Can GET return anything other than a representation of the specified
resource? I don't think it can.

And descriptive knowledge about a resource is not IMHO a representation
of the resource.

And what about abstract or non-web accessible resources? If there is
no representation available, GET will return 404, No?

But MGET will return a description (if available) irregardless of
whether any representation is also available.

> This fixes the first problem in that existing client and 
> server toolkits 
> can be used to request and respond with metadata without 
> modification, 
> and metadata requests and responses should pass through proxies 
> unmolested 

I'm a little ignorant in this area, but precisely how can a proxy
interfere with an MGET request if not explicitly configured to
block it?

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 06:30:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:36 UTC