- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:33:16 -0800
- To: www-tag@w3.org <www-tag@w3.org>
I was thinking over Monday's discussion and the more I think about it, the more I find myself in agreement with Roy. There is no doubt whatsoever that Web Sites are real things that exist. Outside in the non-geek world, people talk about Web Sites more than Web Pages. I operate a Web Site called 'ongoing'. There is no confusion in my mind between the notion of the "site", which comprises several hundred resources (and in my mind, the linkages between them and the software that supports them), and the resource which is the site's Home Page, at http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/. The difference is that whereas I have a URI for the Home Page, I don't have one for the site. It would be nice for Sites, which are a common mental construct related to the Web, to be part of the Web. Suppose I assert that there is a resource which is the "ongoing" Web Site and its URI is http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/Site, and then suppose that I start providing representations of that resource, and further that I start slinging around RDF assertions about the resource. Then that resource for all practical purposes is my Site. It may be an over-simplification to say that a Site is just a collection of Web Resources, i.e. the pages in the site; most mental models of a Web site, like mine, contain more than just an enumeration of URIs. On the other hand, there clearly is a real-world "membership" relationship between resources and sites. Web sites already exist and are important and are part of everyone's mental model of the Web information space. Per the principles in Webarch, they should damn well be resources and have URIs. This is not just for reasons of aesthetic satisfaction, but because there are lots of per-site constructs and many different per-site autodiscovery requirements. Yes, largely due to patterns of speech, there is potential for confusion between the notion of a Site and a Home Page, but this is at worst a minor difficulty. All that's really left to argue about is 1. How to express the membership relation between resources and sites 2. What agents can expect to find in representations of sites 3. Whether the work required to agree on #1 and #2 is cost-effective. -Tim Cheers, Tim Bray http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2004 01:33:13 UTC