W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Representation of a secondary resource?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:25:40 -0500
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1098278739.30433.1133.camel@dirk>
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 10:54, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Hi, sorry I missed the deadline, but perhaps this question could also be
> considered as a last-call comment on the current AWWW document.
> The document mentions secondary resources but does not seem to talk
> about dereferencing them and about the resulting representation (nor
> does rfc 2396 bis).
> Currently, a secondary resource may be some portion or subset of the
> primary resource, some view on representations of the primary resource,
> or some other resource defined or described by those representations.
> (sec 2.6)

Yes, this section needed work. After consideration of yours
and other comments, we've revised the text:

The terms “primary” and “secondary” in this context do not limit the
nature of the resource—they are not classes. In this context, primary
and secondary simply indicate that there is a relationship between the
resources for the purposes of one URI: the URI with a fragment
identifier. Any resource can be identified as a secondary resource. It
might also be identified using a URI without a fragment identifier, and
a resource may be identified as a secondary resource via multiple URIs.
The purpose of these terms is to enable discussion of the relationship
between such resources, not to limit the nature of a resource.
 -- 2.6. Fragment Identifiers
 Editor's Draft 19 October 2004

> But does the secondary resource have a representation itself? I'd expect
> that if it's some view on representations of the primary resource, the
> view is the representation, but if it's some other resource defined or
> described by the representations of the primary resource, then it
> doesn't seem to have a representation itself.

I hope the above text clarifies. As an example,
chapter 3 of a book might be referred to ala
	<rdf:Description rdf:about="#chapter3">
         <dc:description>a thrilling ride...</>
         <owl:sameAs rdf:resource="http://example/chapter3"/>
in myFavoriteWorks.rdf , so that chapter 3 is
secondary to myFavoriteWorks. But as you can see, that same
resource is identified by <http://example/chapter3>,
and might have subsections  <http://example/chapter3#subsec1>
and so on; so chapter3 is primary to those subsections.

see also

3.1.1. Details of retrieving a representation

> Is it significant to consider then the question of when is a secondary
> resource also an information resource (aka web resource)? I believe it
> might be very beneficial to point out that some secondary resources are
> not in fact web resources and could represent, say, the usual "my dog". 

While the TAG has chosen a definition for "information resource,"
we have not decided how it relates to http URI syntax; we have
not closed issue http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14 .

> This could then lead to what I think would be a good practice:
> Worldly objects (people, cars, pets) should be considered secondary
> resources and defined/described by the representations of their
> respective primary resources.

I hope you'll agree that it's best that we publish what we have
before attempting to adopt such a good practice note.

Please let us know whether this response to your comment is

> Best regards,
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>                    Ph.D. student researcher
>                    Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
>                    http://www.deri.org/
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2004 13:24:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 9 February 2023 11:03:00 UTC