W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:48:02 +0000
Message-ID: <47E7DB42.1080503@musc.edu>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>

Harry Halpin wrote:
> 1) As a typed link header, as in "Link:
> http://www.example.org/mydescription
> rel="http://www.w3c.org/example/describedBy"
>   
Honestly, I don't think Link header solves anything.  The logic is here,
What is the content type of the Linked resource? Fixed or anything?

(1) If it is fixed, say it is RDF, then, why not just make the RDF the 
content type of the original resource the metadata or link - whatever 
you call it?  Since the users or browsers has to know it anyway.

(2) If it is anything, that means, the original resource should have a 
fixed representation?  Otherwise, what will be the  relationship between 
R1, R2, etc. vs. M1, M2, etc.  If R1 has only one representation, then, 
it again make the multiple representation of the linked resource 
redundant because it all can merged back to R1. 

What is the purpose of Link then? To make a client to read something and 
then figuring out where the metadata is? Then, putting the Link in the 
content is sufficient. 

Or to make a client not to read the content and directly go to the 
metadata (Link), then the client should already know what they don't 
need, say, the HTML content.   Then, make the RDF content type the 
default metadata or whatever is sufficient too.

Either way, it makes the use of Link redundant .  Of course, unless we 
want to abandon content-negotiation, which I don't think we should.  
Otherwise, Link is unnecessary.

Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 24 March 2008 16:48:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:53 GMT