Hi Patrick,

Patrick Stickler writes:
 > Fair enough. The challenge, it seems, is to provide web server
 > implementations to "basic" users which allow them to define their own
 > descriptions independent of writing code -- yet at the same time
 > provide for the scalable management of resource descriptions by
 > very large information providers.
 > It may be that several approaches will have to compete, and
 > the best approach will become evident from real-world use.
 > To that end, I'm considering making the reference implementation
 > for URIQA a "hybrid" -- whereby both the new methods would be
 > supported, as well as the special header approach which would
 > be obtained by first issuing a HEAD request, and then the
 > explicitly identified description accessed using GET/PUT/etc.
 > Agents can then decide...
 > Patrick

The other possible solution would be if e.g. supported an
MGET to GET mapping. Users could then define terms under the PURL
namespace and have their terms mapped to GET requests (using a
well-defined RULE) to their hosting provider.

Of course this would mean that people without access to MGET capable
servers wouldn't be able to use their own domain names to mint terms,
but it may provide the appropriate bootstrap to encourage hosting
services to add MGET support in the medium term.



Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 05:38:35 UTC