RE: Representation of a secondary resource?

Stuart,

thanks for writing it up. I just want the TAG to fill what I perceive as
a hole in AWWW regarding the representations of resources identified
with fragment identifiers.

Your observation is acute but I believe it's an exception to the text
I'd include. In effect, maybe extending (and perhaps softening) of the
text to be included in 2.6 would do:

        "In general there is no direct way to retrieve a representation
        of a secondary resource using a URI with fragment ID, but in
        some cases a process may be available for producing the
        representation of the secondary resource from a representation
        of the primary resource, which would be specified in the
        relevant media type specification; see 3.2.1."

As for those internal references, I'd only add reference from 3.1.1 to
3.2.1 and note in 3.1.1 that it doesn't in any way illustrate a
situation where the URI of the resource contains a fragment ID. Backward
reference to 2.6 would IMO be unnecessary.

Further, this all would be greatly helped by an example, for example
having an XML (application/xml) document at
http://example.org/people.xml:

<people>
  <person id="john">
    <name>John Doe</name>
    ...
  </person>
  <person id="jane">
    <name>Jane Smith</name>
    ...
  </person>
</people>

The application/xml serialization of the element with the ID "john"
together with its content is the representation of the resource with the
URI http://example.org/people.xml#john

Or perhaps in HTML the same representation but with a different starting
viewpoint is the representation of the secondary resource.

These examples may well be contentious though, so you may ignore them
happily. 8-)

Best regards,

Jacek

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 15:52, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> 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 14:37:03 UTC