W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:09:59 +0100
To: <eran@hueniverse.com>, <jar@creativecommons.org>, <connolly@w3.org>
CC: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5C98607.DBB7%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>



On 2009-02-23 23:10, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:

>> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>> Date: February 19, 2009 12:56:21 PM EST
>>
>> On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 16:32 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> Pursuant to ACTION-200 (XRD use case), requested by Dan C:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-
>>> access-20090205.html#cross_site
>>>
>>> This is rather quick and dirty, so let me know how you'd like to see
>>> it improved.
>>
>> It makes sense, though you correctly " anticipate that some will
>> object
>> that the information should have been put in the representation (i.e.
>> found via GET)"
>
> First, not all representations are capable of embedding such metadata (i.e.
> video, audio, etc.). Second, there are as many people who find it
> objectionable to mix data and metadata within the same representation.

FWIW, this is one of the key motivators for the distinct URIQA methods.

Agents which want to deal with representations use GET/PUT/etc..

Agents which want to deal with authoritative metadata use MGET/MPUT/etc.

Same URI in either case. All you need is the URI.

No worries about how to "link" to the metadata and what link URI to
use/mint.

No worries about whether there is any representation available. Can only be
metadata.

No double-requests (GET/HEAD to find link, GET link to get metadata) for
agents that only want metadata.

....

Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 09:08:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:12 GMT