- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:01:06 -0500
- To: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
- Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, "Michael L. Nelson" <mln@cs.odu.edu>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Herbert, On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to let you know that our response to some issues re Memento raised here > and on Pete Johnston's blog post > (http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2009/11/memento-and-negotiating-on-time.html) is > now available at: > http://www.cs.odu.edu/~mln/memento/response-2009-11-24.html Regarding the suggestion to use the Link header, I was thinking the same thing. But the way you describe it being used is different than how I would suggest it be used. Instead of providing a link to each available representation, the server would just provide a single link to the timegate. The client could then GET the timegate URI and find either the list of URIs (along with date metadata), or some kind of form-like declaration that would permit it to specify the date/time for which it desires a representation (e.g. Open Search). Perhaps this is what you meant by "timemap", I can't tell, though I don't see a need for the use of the Accept header in that case if the client can either choose or construct a URI for the desired archived representation. As for the "current state" issue, you're right that it isn't a general constraint of Web architecture. I was assuming we were talking only about the origin server. Of course, any Web component can be asked for a representation of any resource, and they are free to answer those requests in whatever way suits their purpose, including providing historical versions. Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 05:01:52 UTC