W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2006

Re: A precedent suggesting a compromise for the SWHCLS IG Best Practices (ARK)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:29:41 -0400
Message-Id: <989a34168cfd2d88766b1a4b4fc1a7b8@gmail.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>

Complex data might have been a misnomer. The use case I am referring to 
[1] is a very large chunk of data (5 Tb) where one might want a 
specific (and more efficient) protocol for accessing it. One imagines, 
for example, the google earth full resolution image of the earth as a 
resource, but a specific streaming protocol that only delivers 
appropriate resolution patches on demand.

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/0176

-Alan

On Aug 11, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Paul Prescod wrote:

>> 2. To address the concern that http isn't necessarily a good
>> transport layer for complex data, we allow that providers may opt to
>> provide the metadata and policy, but return a machine and person
>> understandable message that redirects to use the metadata instead,
>> which is specified to include the sort of access service information
>> that lsid provides for.
>
>  I'm curious what you mean by "complex data". At the protocol level, 
> isn't it all just an array of bits? What's an example of complex data 
> that cannot be encoded as bits and sent over a socket wrapped in HTTP 
> headers?
>
Received on Saturday, 12 August 2006 06:30:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:41 GMT