Re: URL +1, LSID -1

 >> Jonathan Rees wrote:
> It would be nice if the process for getting metadata (and data!) for
> resources identified by HTTP URIs were more systematic. The proposals
> I've heard are all awful, but I think it's a good thing to work on.
However, the clarity on the "process" of getting metadata/data actually 
depends on the clarification of what is data and what is metadata.  For 
instance, LSID seems have made the process clear by giving different API 
for getting data and metadata.  But does it help in reality? I guess not 
because if a software client gets back a metadata in an unknown 
format/language/encoding, it is still useless in spite of a "clearly 
defined process". 

I think, if we accept such a definition/convention that "metadata is in 
RDF and data is otherwise", the process for of getting metadata (and 
data) of a HTTP URI becomes automatically clear and content negotiation 
gives us the URI.

Interestingly, when RDF was first developed some 8-9 year ago, it was 
intended for the framework of metadata.  "The solution proposed here is 
to use /metadata/ to describe the data contained on the Web." (From the 
introduction of the 1999 recommendations).  I wonder why W3C has 
abandoned such "phrasing", perhaps W3C intended to make RDF a more 
universal data model.


Received on Friday, 13 July 2007 16:19:19 UTC