- From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 00:53:29 -0400
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, uri@w3.org
Garret Wilson writes: > Fine---there needs to be a standard solution for finding out "where > authoritative descriptive metadata resides." We can all agree that > this is a problem. So? For resources retrieved via HTTP, my preference would be for a header like See-Also or Description, which contains a URI reference indicating a resource providing a machine-readable description of the requested resource. > "Everything HTTP" is one answer that has the side-effect of confusing > the resource with its metadata. There are surely thousands of other > answers. Here are a few off the top of my head. (I'm not proposing > them---I'm just pointing out that there are thousands of other answers > that don't have the same semantic deficiencies.) While it's possible to interpret HTTP URIs in inconsistent ways, there's no requirement that you have to. As an example, let's say <http://example.com/joe> denotes Joe Example. When you dereference you might get a picture or a web page or some RDF, depending on how the request is phrased. In all cases, the actual response would include a Content-Location header telling you that the picture, say, can be found at <http://example.org/joe.jpg>. Thus, there is no confusion between Joe and his picture, bio, and FOAF file. -- David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com> | "In this house, we obey the laws <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem> | of thermodynamics!"
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2003 00:53:28 UTC