Re: URI templates (was Re: fragment or sub-resources)

Regarding the usage of URI templates, IMHO we should take Eran's
note/question [1] into account as well ...

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Sep/0043.html

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:19:48 +1000
> To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
> Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> Subject: URI templates (was Re: fragment or sub-resources)
> Resent-From: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:20:52 +0000
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I checked out URI templates again today.
> 
> 2009/9/7 Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
>>> Now, as you can't know in advance if the server support a specific syntax
>>> for getting sub-resources of a specific resource, we might want to signal
>>> this using a URI template [1], as in that case it really sets expectations
>>> for the client (note that it is an example on how to advertise that a server
>>> would use our syntax for sub-resource).
>>> Comments?
>>> 
>>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-03
>> 
>> I still have trouble to understand how concretely that would work. Could
>> you give us a *detailed* example of how the use of Gregorio's
>> uritemplate will work in practice?
> 
> 
> I think - after having read
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009May/0000.html and
> http://uri-templates.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/spec/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-
> 03.html#anchor1
> that URI templates are just a better way of specifying the structure
> of a URI that a server can parse. In our case it is an alternative to
> the BNF that we wrote, I think. So, I think we can consider eventually
> specifying a URI template for the different schemes that we come up
> with. I think there would be a template for fragments and one for
> queries. It will make it easier for servers to claim which format they
> support. It may even be usable for "advertising" what they support.
> 
> Our temporal URI fragment addressing could, e.g. look like this
> 
> tscheme=["npt","smpt","smpte-25","smpte-30","smpte-30-drop","clock"]
> 
>  http://example.org/#t={tscheme}:{tspec} {-alt | {tspec} [ , {tspec} ]
> |   , {tspec} }
> 
> Notice how I had to invent a new function called "-alt" because there
> is no way to specify alternatives  with URI templates. Maybe the way
> to do it is to make two URI templates out of it.
> 
> In any case, I think if somebody is keen to get the URI specification
> available as a URI template, they can go ahead. I don't think they add
> any additional value over the already existing BNF.
> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>

Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 08:10:17 UTC