- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:17:42 +0200
- To: <JeffreyWinter@crd.com>, <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeffrey Winter [mailto:JeffreyWinter@crd.com] > Sent: 12 February, 2003 17:02 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); miles@milessabin.com; > www-tag@w3.org > Subject: RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation) > > > > > > But, again, this imposes two system calls to get descriptions > > of resources *and* requires the explicit naming of those > > bodies of knowledge, which is unnecessary. > > I don't see the two system calls as being particularly > problematic since > in the general case, "metadata" resources would be requested > orders of > magnitude less often than "normal" resources. If use cases could be > described where it was an issue I'd be interested in seeing them. I think that once rich metadata is available in volume, once a reasonable architecture is in place to serve it, that *most* automated agents and web services will be wanting metadata alot. > I also don't see why you *wouldn't* want to make the metadata, in any > form, an addressable resource. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to, only that in most use cases I can dream up or have heard, you wouldn't want or need to. When's the last time you've referred to "all the knowledge known by X about Y"? And if you want to, fine, give it a name and do so. But don't *require* the duplication of URIs on the web just to allow one to get descriptions of resources. > I take issue with the original premise the that metadata should > ever be non-addressible. I've never presumed nor asserted that. Ever. Go re-read my posts. I've only ever said that one should not need a *different* URI from that of the resource in order to publish or obtain or otherwise interact with descriptions of that resource. Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 10:19:31 UTC