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

RE: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:00:30 -0700
To: "Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: "jar@creativecommons.org" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "connolly@w3.org" <connolly@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234127DD22FEE@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
I'll separate the two for my next draft and correct this.

Adding URIQA support in many hosted environments or large corporate deployment isn't simple. It sets a pretty steep threshold on adoption [1]. I actually like the MGET approach a lot, but I can't sell it to 90% of my use cases. Consider me an extreme pragmatists...

EHL

[1] http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2009/02/the-equal-access-principal.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:48 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; julian.reschke@gmx.de
> Cc: jar@creativecommons.org; connolly@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2009-02-24 18:18, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Both of which are included in my analysis [1] for the discovery
> proposal.
> 
> A few notes:
> 
> The statement "Minimum roundtrips to retrieve the resource descriptor:
> 2" is
> not correct for URIQA.  Only one is needed.
> 
> URIQA also supports self declaration. The descriptor returned can of
> course
> include statements about the descriptor itself, though typically the
> descriptor would be a CBD by default, which would not. Still, no reason
> why
> it couldn't.
> 
> Not sure why you would consider "Scale and Technology Agnostic" a
> negative,
> since in real practice, if you have a server that is going to offer
> authoritative metadata, you have to enhance the server in some manner
> (e.g.
> to insert links, etc.) so being able to modularly add a component which
> doesn't intrude upon the existing core web server functionality, but
> can
> operate in an auxilliary fashion, satisfying requests for metadata in a
> manner not intrinsically tied to how representations are served, is a
> plus
> in my book. And solutions such as link forces content publishers to
> mint
> extra URIs to identify the descriptors explicitly, when usually,
> clients
> don't care about the identity of the descriptor, they just want the
> metadata. So again, "technology agnostic" = "modular" in my book, and
> that's
> always a plus.
> 
> Perhaps you should split URIQA from PROPFIND since your summary of
> PROPFIND
> does not correctly capture its properties, and suggests URIQA is
> essentially
> equivalent, which it clearly is not.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> >
> > EHL
> >
> > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-02#appendix-B.2
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:45 AM
> >> To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> >> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; jar@creativecommons.org; connolly@w3.org;
> www-
> >> tag@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.
> >>
> >> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Agents which want to deal with authoritative metadata use
> >> MGET/MPUT/etc.
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> Same with PROPFIND and PROPPATCH, btw.
> >>
> >> BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 17:01:38 GMT

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