RE: Uniform access to descriptions

> From:  Alan Ruttenberg
>       So an IR is the sort of thing that can emit a response.
>
>       Which means it can't be the Microsoft Word document I
>     just worked on, since as far as I know, such things aren't
>     capable of emitting anything.
>
>       Do I have this right?

People often speak colloquially about an information resource "responding" to an HTTP GET request (or in this case "emitting" a response).  This should be understood as a shorthand for saying that the HTTP *server* responds on behalf of the "information resource" that the URI denotes.

So, if http://example/proteins.doc is dereferenced and yields a 200 response, then by the httpRange-14 rule we know:

  <http://example/proteins.doc> a awww:InformationResource .

but the following might also being true, even though the 200 response by itself did not tell you so:

  <http://example/proteins.doc> a doctypes:MicrosoftWord .
  <http://example/proteins.doc> dc:subject "proteins" .

Similarly, if http://weather.example/oaxaca is dereferenced and yields a 200 response, then by the httpRange-14 rule we know:

  <http://weather.example/oaxaca> a awww:InformationResource .

But the following may also be true:

  <http://weather.example/oaxaca>  dc:subject "weather" .
  <http://weather.example/oaxaca>  foo:location "oaxaca" .

Furthermore, we've discussed how a proposed new HTTP header, Resource-Description (or perhaps Link), could point to this additional information.  And we've discussed how such additional information can be provided using a 303-URI instead of a 200-responding URI (again, I'm speaking colloquially):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Feb/0033.html

So, what's your point?



David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.