Re: Representation of a secondary resource?

Dan, 

thanks for the reply. Most of it satisfies me, with one exception. 

Section 3.1.1 linked below mentions neither fragment IDs nor secondary
resources, but in HTTP the fragment ID is not a part of the URI used in
the HTTP request. Currently, there is no space in the eight points in
3.1.1 where fragment ID would be handled. 

It could be a part of point 8, but it currently says the agent
interprets the representation, with no apparent room for generating out
of that a representation of the secondary resource, according to the
fragment handling described by the media type etc.

So currently section 3.1.1 basically implies that secondary resources
don't have representations, at least in HTTP. Whatever the position of
the TAG on this, it should be mentioned explicitly in 3.1.1.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Ph.D. student researcher
                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
                   http://www.deri.org/




On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 15:25, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041019/#fragid
> 
> 
> > 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"/>
>         </rdf:Description>
> 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
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041019/#dereference-details
> 
> 
> > 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
> satisfactory.
> 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> >                    Jacek Kopecky
> > 
> >                    Ph.D. student researcher
> >                    Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
> >                    http://www.deri.org/
> > 
> > 
> >

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2004 16:53:25 UTC