W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Using the term "representation" bidirectionally [was Re: the mistake I made! ]

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:32:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4D713052.90107@webr3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
David Booth wrote:
> Sorry, I'm a little behind on these messages, but trying to catch up.
> Comments below.
> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 08:01 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>>> Why reflects? well it's reflects because in the case of GET representations
>>> can be conneg'd, subject to the capabilities of the agent, over language,
>>> auth*, or media type or suchlike - hence "which are equivalent" - and in the
>>> case of PUT, it's reflects because you may PUT a jpeg but the server will be
>>> able to send back the same image in gif or png or a different size.
> In HTTP-bis Roy is using the word "representation" both as something
> that comes *from* a resource and as something that can be sent *to* a
> resource (e.g., in a PUT request).  I first noticed this a few months
> ago and it made me uncomfortable because I think it is easier to talk
> about representations as things that you GET from (information)
> resources, but not the other way around (PUT).  

Ahh, there are two forms of "representation"
  - "representation" (content+meta, bound to an anonymous resource)
  - "resource representation" (content+meta, bound to the identified 

s/bound to/associated with.

    A "representation" is information in a format that can be readily
    communicated from one party to another.  A "resource representation"
    is information that reflects the state of that resource, as observed
    at some point in the past (e.g., in a response to GET) or to be
    desired at some point in the future (e.g., in a PUT request).

see here http://webr3.org/http-combinations.txt for a list of when the 
"representation" is a "resource representation"

do keep going though, there's a bit to catch up on, possibly worth 
reading in the reverse direction (newest first)
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 18:35:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:22 UTC