- From: Jeffrey Winter <JeffreyWinter@crd.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:39:07 -0500
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: <tag@w3.org>
Why limit this approach to just site-level metadata? Shouldn't a similar approach be adopted to bind metadata to any resource under the control of the "publisher"? I can see how this would benefit an RPC-style gateway as a means of (for example) standardizing how to obtain a WSDL document, but what about REST-style applications where each resource may (and probably will) have its own specific metadata? > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org] > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:02 AM > To: www-tag@w3.org > Cc: tag@w3.org > Subject: Proposed issue: site metadata hook > > > > In the face-face meeting I took an action to write up a proposal for > the following potential issue: > > > Proposed Short name: SiteMetadata-nn > > Title: Web site metadata improving on robots.txt, w3c/p3p > and favicon > etc > > The architecture of the web is that the space of identifiers > on an http web site is owned by the owner of the domain name. > The owner, "publisher", is free to allocate identifiers > and define how they are served. > > Any variation from this breaks the web. The problem > is that there are some conventions for the identifies on websites, > that > > /robots.txt is a file controlling robot access > /w3c/p3p is where you put a privacy policy > /favico is an icon representative of the web site > > and who knows what others. There is of course no > list available of the assumptions different groups and manufacturers > have used. > > These break the rule. If you put a file which happens to be > called robots.txt but has something else in, then weird > things happen. > One might think that this is unlikely, now, but the situation could > get a lot worse. It is disturbing that a > precedent has been set and the number of these may increase. > > There are other problems as well - as well sites are catalogued > by a number of different agents, there tend to be all kinds > or request for things like the above, while one would like to > be able to pick such things up as quickly as possible. > > If, when these features were designed, there had been a > general way of attaching metadata to a web site, it would > not have been necessary. > > The TAG should address this issue and find a solution, > or put in place steps for a solution to be found, > which allows the metadata about a site, including that for > later applications, to be found with the minimum overhead > and no use of reserved URIs within the server space. > > Example solution for feasability > > A new http tag such as "Metadata:" is introduced into HTTP > This takes one parameter, which is the URI of the > metadata document. The header is supplied on response to > any GET or HEAD of the root document ("/"). It may also > be supplied on a any other request, including error > requests. > > The Metadata document is conventionally written in RDF/XML. > It contains pointers to all kinds of standard and/or proprietary > metadata about the site, including for example > > - privacy policy > - robot control > - icon for representing the site > - site maps > - syndicates (RSS ) feeds > - IPR information > - site policy > - site owners > > The solution only needs to document the hook and the > vocabulary to point to metadata resources in current > use. Vocabulary for new applications can be defined > by those applications. > > timbl > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 08:39:22 UTC