- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:11:17 -0700
- To: dbooth@hp.com
- Cc: skw@hp.com, raman@google.com, www-tag@w3.org
in my experience words like these always get confusing.
Format usually indicates file format e.g. html vs pdf vs ps ---
I'm not comfortable in using format in this context.
Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) writes:
> I suggest using the word "format" instead of "representation" in these
> contexts.
> So, for example, instead of:
>
> "On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable
> Discovery And Publishing"
>
> it would be:
>
> "On Linking Alternative Formats To Enable
> Discovery And Publishing"
>
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> HP Software
> dbooth@hp.com
> Phone: +1 617 629 8881
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> > Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:32 AM
> > To: raman@google.com
> > Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Generic-Resources-53: URIs for representations
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
--
Best Regards,
--raman
Title: Research Scientist
Email: raman@google.com
WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman
GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 15:20:56 UTC