- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:44:11 +0200
- To: <masinter@adobe.com>, <dehora@eircom.net>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Larry Masinter [mailto:masinter@adobe.com] > Sent: 02 February, 2003 00:28 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); dehora@eircom.net > Subject: Re: Valid representations, canonical > representations, and what > the SW needs from the Web... > > > http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2518.html#METHOD_PROPFIND > > is > > > .... a standardized mechanism by which one might > > inquire from an HTTP server about all metadata knowledge available > > from that server about a resource.... Thanks Larry. This is definitely something I will look at in detail. Though it does raise the obvious question: since this standardized functionality exists, why do we need RDDL? Or rather, why does a RDDL instance need to be treated as a *representation* of an XML Namespace, rather than just a body of metadata describing various characteristics of the namespace resource and relations to other resources? Why not just do a PROPFIND on the XML Namespace to get the same knowledge that would be defined in a RDDL instance, which would then not blurr and distort the conceptual relationship between resource and representation, since I'm presuming that whatever is returned by PROPFIND is not considered to (necessarily) be a representation of the resource. Granted, typical browser users are not used to thinking about metadata, but that doesn't mean they would not understand and welcome a means to ask a server "Tell me about this thing" rather than "Show me this thing". ??? Patrick -- Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com [I hope you don't mind my sharing this with the list, since it seemed clearly of significance to the discussion]
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 07:44:14 UTC