- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:42:51 -0000
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>
- Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-archive+n3bugs@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[...] > What you are looking for is a header field that defines the > relationship between representation and resource in a manner > that is simple to understand and relatively standard. Yes, you're right... my ideas did not come out at all well in my previous email, so allow me to try again [1]. Using the RFC 2616 wording, a resource corresponds to a set of entities over time. Once again, the arguement is that it's difficult to set out the nature of the correspondance, and indeed, whether or not some types of correspondance are ever allowed. For example, some guy recently wanted to have a URI that identifies the concept of his copy of "Weaving The Web"; he used "http://logicerror.com/myWeavingTheWeb". TimBL seems to argue (and this is only my interpretation) that you can never say "this is a representation of the concept of my copy of 'Weaving The Web'", because there is no machinery in HTTP for saying "this is material *about* what you are looking for". Whatever the case, it is clear that it is difficult for an author to define the relationship. My HTTP-Header suggestion, which should be taken cum_grano_salis (think in terms of barrels of salt), was an attempt at being able to say explicitly, in the header, "this is stuff about the abstract resource described in this representation", rather than "this is stuff which corresponds closely to the resource, a thread of publications". Of course, in reality, there are not two discrete states such as these (well, you could argue that we could provide such a taxonomy, but you certainly wouldn't label them as I did), and so finely grained metadata such as RDF would need to be used. Then we have Sandro's work to consider:- [[[ Can an object be both a Web Page and a Person? [...] I think the answer is it can. For a predicate it's just like having two functions by the same name (and in the same scope) which are disambiguated by their type signatures or For a subject/object, it's like implementing multiple interfaces, which works as long as the interface element names are different. ]]] - http://www.w3.org/2001/03/identification-problem/clever There was also some discussion on RDF IG a short while ago about adding RDF to HTTP-Headers, although then we were talking about content types, rather than the nature of the resource. It's all in:- http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-10-25.txt Russel O'Connor asked about using HTTP headers with RDF for digital signatures:- [[[ It would be nice if there were a standard way of putting RDF in HTTP headers, and create secure digital signatures. ]]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2001MarApr/0058 CC/PP also uses RDF-in-headers:- http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/01/31/ccpp.html So whilst we're thinking now in a more grandoise scale, this is certainly not a new set of ideas. It would be nice if we could figure something out. Cheers, [1] Read: back-pedal :-) -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 10:43:29 UTC