- 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