- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:29:14 +0200
- To: "ext Phil Dawes" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Mar 15, 2004, at 12:37, ext Phil Dawes wrote: > > 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. PURL.org 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. This is certainly one possible "collective/cooperative" deployment of the URIQA model. And in fact, it would reflect exactly how it is done by the Nokia implementation, which simply redirects MGET requests to a URIQA service query portal. > > 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. Sure. Patrick > > Cheers, > > Phil > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 06:29:43 UTC