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

Re: siteData-36: strawman + httpRange-14 [ "Resource-Type:" ]

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:00:14 -0500
Message-Id: <200302272200.h1RM0EI28745@wadimousa.hawke.org>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
cc: www-tag@w3.org


I like the background discussion and the mechanism.  I see one little
flaw near the end:

> Of course, this leads inevitably to the question of what is a useful 
> representation for a site.  The kinds of stuff that could go there could 
> include robots info, language info, favicon.ico equivalent, RSS info, 
> p3p info, etc etc etc.  Unlike the RDDL issues we've been discussing, I 
> see little requirement for human readability, so this feels like a 
> natural for a small (but extensible) RDF vocabulary, who cares if it's 
> ugly.  The RDF assertions would mostly have as their subject the URI "", 
> which works well in this case.  -Tim

But if you do that, then you can't distinguish between assertions
about the site and assertions about the site information document.
For instance, the site might have been created on one day and this
site-information RDF document might have been created on another.  Is
the triple 
   <> dc:date "2003-02-27"
saying that the site was created today or that the meta-site
information page was created today?

You could solve this using TimBL's foo#bar style, with sites being
named so that, for instance, http://www.w3.org/site#member would
identify the "W3C Member-Only Site", "http://www.w3.org/site#all"
might identify the "Overall Site", ... and this still leaves
"http://www.w3.org/site" to identify the document prividing
information about one or more sites.  I suppose one or more of those
sites might contain that meta-information document.

It's interesting to note that "Site" here, as I think you've described
it, is an RDF type or RDFS/OWL class.  Each resource is either part of
the site or it's not, and the ones which are part of the site have
certain common characteristics.  So one might call the HTTP header
"Resource-Type", in nice parallel to "Content-Type".  In this case we
would certainly expect people to define their own Resource-Types and
make available information about them on the web (ie in these site
meta-data information documents).   This is of course much broader
that the normal notion of web sites, which are entirely disjoint
classes. 

Note also that each "Site" class (such as: the class of all resources
which are part of the W3C member-only site, w3c:MemberSiteResource) is
probably a subclass of WebPage, ConceptualWork, ..., or whatever
httpRange-14 comes up with.

I like it.

   -- sandro
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 17:01:12 GMT

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