Re: random comments on 2nd LC of WebArch (resources/representations)

Dom,

1) The definition of the term "Information Resource" received 
significant attention at our Basel F2F at the beginning of October. We 
have clarified the definition and moved it earlier in the document, 
under Section 2.2 URI/Resource Relationships [1].

2)  The text discussing secondary resources has been revised such that 
the paragraph you refer to in section 3.3.1 (now 3.2.1) has been 
deleted. The revised text on primary/secondary resources is at [2].

3) I/we are not aware of other protocols that support content 
negotiation. Do you have an example that you would like us to include? 
In the absense of any known examples, there language of section 3.3.2  
(now 3.2.2) has not been changed.

We believe that we have addressed your comments in our current editors 
draft [1,2]. Please could you let us know, ASAP, whether or not you 
agree that we have.

Many thanks

Stuart Williams
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#id-resources
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#media-type-fragid

Dan Connolly wrote:

>On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 08:46, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote:
>  
>
>>A few  points I noted while skimming through 
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/
>>    
>>
>[...]
>
>2nd main point seems to be...
>
>  
>
>>Resources/Representations
>>- section 3.1 has 
>>"The term Information Resource refers to resources that convey
>>information. Any resource that has a representation is an information
>>resource"
>> This makes several assumptions that it would be nice to explicit and
>>explain:
>> * a resource having a representation implies that it conveys
>>information
>> * is the set of Information Resources exactly the set of resources that
>>have a representation? of does it strictly include it?
>> * the wording "a resource conveys" seems slippery;
>> * since Resources can be anything, I assume they can be Representation
>>of resources, and thus representation of themselves; I have the feeling
>>this may lead to paradoxes but haven't fully investigated it; maybe
>>Resources and Representations should be in a different domain of
>>discourse?
>> * if a resource R identified by the URI http://example.org/foo has 2
>>representations in conneg, GETtable at http://example.org/foo.xml and
>>http://example.org/foo.html, is there any relationship between
>>http://example.org/foo, http://example.org/foo.html and
>>http://example.org/foo.xml? if so, which? 
>>
>>- in 3.3.1, "One cannot carry out an HTTP POST operation using a URI
>>that identifies a secondary resource." this seems very HTTP-specific;
>>any chance this refers to something broader? Otherwise, I suggest it
>>should belong to the HTTP spec, not to WebArch.
>>
>>- in 3.3.2, "HTTP is an example of a protocol that enables
>>representation providers to use content negotiation."; are there any
>>other protocol with an associated URI scheme that allows such a thing?
>>If so, I suggest to add it as an example.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 14:01:03 UTC