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

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

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:39:05 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACF0C@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com'" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, www-tag@w3.org

Ok, I think I understand.  Still, if they are 
different resources, one being a descriptive 
document about the other, you seem to be 
saying that you want to be able to get 
different resources with the same name; 
or really, use one name but depending on 
the method, get different resources.

You do this by using a different method 
so the selector discriminates not by 
what is asked for but by how.  It is 
as if you went to the library and 
asked for a book, but depending on 
how you asked, the librarian brings 
you a book or the card catalog entry.

I can see that working well.  I'm not 
convinced it is necessary but I leave 
that to those more familiar with the 
issues of fielding new verbs. 

Thanks for the explanation!

len


From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]

> From: ext Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]

> Why are representations of documents 
> about other documents not just documents?

They are. But they need not be named documents. And in most
cases, when speaking of the body of knowledge known by a 
server about a resource, they will not be named.

> What is the advantage of separate but equal resources?

There are no separate but equal resources.

If you want to name the resource corresponding to the body
of knowledge known about another resource, go ahead. But
why do so if you don't ever need to?

The part that is distinct is the behavior of the HTTP server.

If I ask for a description of a resource, it is not returning
a representation of that resource, but rather a representation
of *another* resource, which is the body of knowledge known
about the resource denoted by the URI in the request to the
server.

It is this distinction between interacting with respresentations,
per the Web, versus interacting with descriptions, per the 
Semantic Web which must be kept distinct.

And the semantics of HTTP methods at present deal only with interacting
with representations, and trying to overload them to also support
interacting with descriptions does not seem to be possible, and even
if possible, not optimal and certainly not straightforward.

What is needed, IMO, are new methods specialized for interacting
with descriptions. Hence my proposal for MGET, MPUT, MDELETE, etc.
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 10:40:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT