RE: Comments on 18 September 2003 editors draft

Ian suggested that I send a png of my first cut at the web arch model, so
here it is..

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> David Orchard
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:37 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Comments on 18 September 2003 editors draft
>
>
>
> I've sent Ian a UML diagram showing relationships between a
> number of terms
> that we use in the document, such as: representation, data, metadata,
> resource, uri, message, agent, format, media type, fragment
> identifier,
> schema language.  I'd like to formally propose to the tag
> that we include a
> diagram that shows the relationships between many of the
> terms that we talk
> about in our document.  I have done the same in the extensibility and
> versioning finding with the terminology diagram.  Ian has
> suggest that we
> gradually introduce the terms, like rep/resource/uri, followed by
> message/rep/data/metadata.  I like that idea a lot and
> support it.  I've
> suggested another few diagram subsets that would be useful.
> I do think that
> we should have a complete model of most of the terms that we
> talk about, not
> just fragments.  I'd like the tag to formally discuss and
> hopefully approve
> this idea.  I suggest that this could be part of section 6,
> which has an
> index to terms (ie glossary).  I'm amenable to various
> notational styles of
> the model.  I simply picked uml as I'm familiar with it, it's somewhat
> standardized, and I have tools for it.
>
> I'd like to see a diagram in 3.1, pretty much what we had
> written up on the
> board in vancouver.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>