- From: Jeffrey Winter <JeffreyWinter@crd.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:47:20 -0500
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> How to decide between the above two approaches? Is there any > *benefit* to giving the "metadata" a different URI than the > "data"? I'd say I prefer the RDF to be the authoritative > data/description about some resource so conneg > gets my preference for that reason. If the data & metadata share a URI, how can you get metadata about metadata? If the metadata has its own URI, conneg could be used to get the exact type of metadata of interest, RDF, WSDL, etc. But even that might not be enough. There may be multiple metadata documents of the same type associated with a resource, or documents that don't have a distinguishing type. > (I'm not sure I like the term "metadata" > as it implies some secondary importance to that *data*) This is precisely why it deserves its own URI.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 09:47:45 UTC