- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:06:11 -0500
- To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
Joshua Allen wrote: > > I think the problem is very simple. If you declare that > http://www.markbaker.ca/ represents the physical you, then you lose the > ability to make assertions about the resource that is returned when you > do a GET on that URI. If you want to let some URIs do one thing and > others another, you need a way for people (and machines) to figure out > what the "default" sense of that URI is. The other possibility is to > *always* specify (when recording metadata about a URI) what sense you > are using the URI. This last option seems like the only safe one to me, > since people obviously are insisting on using HTTP URIs to assign > metadata about things that are *not* GET-able resources. http://www.markbaker.ca/ can easily both identify "Mark Baker", the person, and be GETable. The media type image/jpg _representation_ might be a picture of Mark. The media type text/html _representation_ might be an HTML page which Mark uses to describe himself. and on. Now if Mark decides that the HTML page which is his text/html representation _itself_ should be a resource which can itself be described, he can either give it another URI e.g. + "index.html" or whatever he chooses. I see no reason why only "document" type resources _need be_ the only GETable resource. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 18:09:26 UTC