- From: David Jacobs <djacobs@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:17:18 -1000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > The Web methods GET, PUT, etc. enable you to interact > with the book. > > The SW methods MGET, MPUT, etc. enable you to interact > with the description of the book, with the card from > the card catalog, so to speak. > > If you *want* to give that card its own name, fine, but > usually folks just say "the card for book X". It's > normal behavior to refer to such bodies of knowledge > indirectly. That doesn't mean you have to, but it's > reasonable for the default mode of operation to do so. > > IMHO, two aspects get lost by using the MGET, MPUT, etc for retrieving metadata. I would argue that sometimes metadata about metadata is required (e.g., quality assertions about metadata assertions) . This is why metadata should be a first class citizen (i.e., have its own URI). Secondly, there is a tremendous amount of metadata which would be qualified as opinions (e.g., think of Moody bond ratings). Furthermore, metadata about a resource is often created by third parties (i.e., not the owner/publisher of the resource). These were the reasons Roger Costello and I argued for adding the Meta-Location and Meta-About HTTP headers. Which support those aspects. David Jacobs
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 13:17:34 UTC