RE: referendum on httpRange-14

[Taking this off the TAG list, since it seems to have diverged
 into a non-TAG-specific topic...]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Sandro Hawke
> Sent: 19 October, 2004 17:10
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc: Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: referendum on httpRange-14 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Well, I've proposed "Web Resource", which is the subclass 
> of Resources
> > which have web accessible representations.
> > 
> > So, if for a given URI you GET a "200 OK" response, it is a "web =
> > resource".
> > 
> > But what real utility does that provide the user? Why the 
> need for any
> > name at all? Or why the need for a subclass of Resource?
> 
> Sorry, I missed this amid the spam on my first pass through 
> my mailbox.
> 
> The utility is just based on the Ontaria UI design: resources are
> viewed through a particular presentation-rule appropriate to the class
> of the resource.  Since resources are usually in multiple classes,
> they have multiple views, which the user can select on tabs.  It's a
> little hard to explain; hopefully it'll be obvious if you play with it
> in the next release.

OK, I can see now the utility of knowing what specific classes
a resource is a member of.

I would caution, though, about "guessing" about class membership
based on web behavior.

Yes, membership in the class of "web resources" should be determinable
based on web behavior, but membership is volitile, and so I would
hesitate myself in making any persistent statements about such
membership.

I'd have a default, generic view for "Resources", and only present
views per more specific classes when membership in those classes
is asserted in some authoritative source. I.e. I'd expect Ontaria
to respect and preserve the knowledge obtained by the web authorities
for particular resources and not reflect system-specific "presumptions"
about those resources based on web behavior (or any other questionable
criteria).

Then again, perhaps one of the key goals of Ontaria is to present
such presumptions, rather than simply serving as a clearing house
for knowledge ;-)

Cheers,

Patrick

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2004 07:06:47 UTC