RE: Representation of a secondary resource?

Hello Dan,

I have been chatting with Jacek, I guess the net of it is that there is
still something that he wants/needs us to do to satisfy his comment.

As I understand it Jacek's principle concern is that we very clearly set
expectations about whether it is possible to retrieve directly
representations of a resource that is secondary with respect to a given
URI. I think that he has 'grok'ed the secondary/primary are not classes
of resource but a relation between resources wrt to a single URI.

I think that Jacek would be satisfied with the inclusion in 2.6 of words
to the effect of:

	"In general it is not possible to directly retrieve a
representation of a secondary resource using a URI with fragmentID."

He's also requested some internal cross referencing between 3.1.1
(making it clear that the example there does not elaborate on the use of
fragIds) and either or both sections 3.2.1 and 2.6.


Personnally I'm mixed about whether we need to say more than we say in
"2.6 Fragment Identifiers": I think:

	"The 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."

provides some scope to construe that in somecases the representation of
a secondary resource is some part of the representation of the primary
resource. This makes me reticent about making the more general statement
Jacek is seeking - because in some cases there is an effective procedure
that would yield a representation of a secondary resource.

Jacek... we didn't discuss this when we spoke, but I'm wondering if that
observation I've just made above would be sufficient for you to be able
to 'live-with' the current wording (and maybe the additional
cross-referencing.

Regards

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org] 
> Sent: 27 October 2004 13:53
> To: Dan Connolly
> Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org; Stuart Williams
> Subject: Re: Representation of a secondary resource?
> 
> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 14:47, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > I believe a reference from 3.1 (or 3.1.1) to "details of handling 
> > > URIs with fragment identifiers, IOW getting representation for 
> > > secondary resources" pointing to 3.2.1 could solve this, in case 
> > > that's the way of getting to a representation of a resource via
its 
> > > secondary resource identifier (URI with fragID).
> > 
> > No, that's not a way of getting a representation of such a resource.
> 
> Dan,
> 
> in this case I'll be satisfied if section 3.1.1 mentions that 
> it excludes URIs with fragIDs and section 2.6 notes that this 
> document doesn't inform the reader on getting representations 
> for secondary resources, if indeed they have any.
> 
> Thanks for the patience with me,
> 
> Jacek
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 13:53:04 UTC