- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:08:27 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 08:28 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote: [ . . . ] > A = an RDF graph > B = an RDF/XML file that encodes (etc.) A > Brep = a REST-representation of B > C = an N-triples file that encodes (etc.) A > Crep = a REST-representation of C > D = a "generic resource" (in TimBL's sense of the word, and as > permitted by the content negotiation feature of HTTP) with the > following properties: > Brep is a REST-representation of D > Crep is a REST-representation of D > U is a URI that is used (in RDF, say, or elsewhere) to refer to B > V is a URI that is used to refer to D [ . . . ] > > You are right that we shouldn't use U to refer to A. The only problem I see with using U to refer to A both A and B (ambiguously) is if you have some application need to distinguish between A and B. As explained here http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/#httpRange-14 there is no architectural reason why U should not refer (ambiguously) to both A and B. Whether or not it should is an engineering choice that depends on your application. -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 02:08:56 UTC