- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:08:46 +0200
- To: <JeffreyWinter@crd.com>, <dehora@eircom.net>
- Cc: <paul@prescod.net>, <jbone@deepfile.com>, <sandro@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeffrey Winter [mailto:JeffreyWinter@crd.com] > Sent: 04 February, 2003 15:40 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); dehora@eircom.net > Cc: paul@prescod.net; jbone@deepfile.com; sandro@w3.org; > www-tag@w3.org > Subject: RE: Valid representations, canonical > representations, and what > the SW needs from the Web... > > > > > > > Or far better, > > > > > > > > GET http://www.prescod.net gives you a representation of > > a resource > > > > MGET http://www.prescod.net gives you knowledge of a resource > > > > > > I'm not sure that this is far better - making a > separation between > > > 'resource knowledge' and 'resource snapshot' seems somewhat > > > arbitrary. > > One problem that I see is that one person's metadata is another > person's data. I don't really think that applies here. The definition of what metadata is in this case is pretty specific -- RDF statements which have the resource URI as subject (providing as well for arbitrary subgraphs of connected bnodes, terminating at literals and urirefs). Yes, to a SW agent, that is "data". So what. That's the point. For SW agents to get at what is data to them without conflict with, or in spite of, what the Web considers data. > One could imagine an AOP tool that would only > ever care about dealing with metadata; forcing it to work > with only special methods would be overly restrictive. I don't follow. If all it wanted to do was deal with knowledge, *why* would it ever want to do anything else but work with special methods optimized for dealing with knowledge? > Also, how > could you ever express meta-metadata? I don't see a problem. Presuming you mean that meta-metadata is metadata about the terms used to express metadata about a resource, that's easy. The terms themselves are resources. If the metadata returned by MGET for http://example.com/foo contained the RDF statement <http://example.com/foo> rdf:type <http://example.com/Image> . and you wanted to inquire about what http://example.com/Image meant, you'd just do an MGET on http://example.com/Image and so forth, interatively, for any resource you needed additional knowledge about until satisfied (or you run out of memory ;-) Or did you mean something else by "meta-metadata"? > Some mechanism that binds a resource to another resource via > a relationship expressed either through a header, or through a > convension applied to the OPTIONS method would seem more > expressive and adaptable. Well IFF the OPTIONS method reflects the resource and not a representation (and RFC 2616 is IMO not clear on that point) then I could imagine it would be possible to implement the same functionality as MGET, MPUT, and MDELETE as proposed, but not as intuitively as distinct verbs analogous to those used with representations. And if the OPTIONS method reflects representations, which I suspect it actually does, then that simply won't work. Period. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 09:08:51 UTC