- From: Williams, Stuart \(HP Labs, Bristol\) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:31:50 +0100
- To: <raman@google.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
I happened on "On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And Publishing" [1] in a way that casued be to read through the draft. I've got what I think is an editorial comment about consistency of use of the term "representation" with respect to the way it is used in webarch. I think that in creating webarch [2] we tried to maintain a fairly clear distinction between resources and representations (modulo anything can be a resource!). In that world view, IIRC, it was "resources" rather than "representations" that have URIs. In particular, IIRC, we framed representations as an ephemeral things ('bits' on a wire) that are exchanged between web clients and origin servers. At 2.1 this draft asks: "Given resource http://example.com/ubiquity/resource with corresponding representations for a desktop browser, a PDA and a cell-phone, should these different representations: - Have distinct URIs? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - Have a single URI that delivers the appropriate representation? - If publishing distinct URIs for the resource and its various representations, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ how should the relationship between these URIs be expressed in a discoverable, machine-readable form? How should this relationship be reflected in the hyperlink structure of the Web?" The language through the rest of the finding tends to speak in terms of representations as things that can have URIs: eg. 2.1.1 Suggested Solution We suggest the following approach for this situation: 1. Create representation-specific URIs for each available representation (representation_i), e.g., http://example.com/ubiquity/resource/representation_i. ... 4. ...using a redirect to the URI of a specific representation... 5. Use linking mechanisms provided by the representation being served to create links to the other available representations. ... 4 Conclusions Principal conclusions: ...Thus, each representation of interest should get it's own URI and there should be one additional URI representing the generic resource. I'm not sure how I would suggest squaring this, other than to suggest that the alternate URI (ie. non-generic URI) are references to alternate resources that serve up appropriate, specific, variant representions of the corresponding generic resource. Best regards Stuart Williams -- [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery-20060915.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch
Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 14:32:20 UTC