- From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:08:43 +0000
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Now, we're seeing a spectrum of views on what a "representation" in HTTP sense might be. >From Xiaoshu's "I think there is no inherent relationship between a representation and resource, let along isomorphic." ... to Pat's "But yes, I'm assuming that webarch:representation is something like taking an imprint from a platen. It has to in some sense be a 'faithful' representation of 'all' of the resource." Both of the above cannot be true, and allowing both interpretation hurts web architecture. The HTTP spec provides no real guidance. I propose that the TAG provides the community with a single, consistent view on this issue: "What is the relationship between a http:representation and a webarch:resource"? /Mikael tor 2007-10-25 klockan 21:40 -0400 skrev Chimezie Ogbuji: > Noah Writes: > > Your view seems to be that the resource needs to, at least in some sense, be > > isomorphic to the representation, so you infer that when the representation > > changes the resource must have changed. It seems to follow > > that in the case of conneg, the resource must in some sense be (or be > > isomorphic to) the union of all served representations. > > This view is actually consistent with the normative behavior for GRDDL > that we settled on with regards to content negotiation: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/#langconneg3 > > In the case of GRDDL, the 'maximal' GRDDL result (the RDF merge of the > renditions of each of the representations) is an acceptable rendition > of the original IR. > > > My preferred view is that > > there is allowance for changing policy as to how a particular resource is > > represented, and that such changes to not necessarily imply that the resource itself has changed. > > With such an allowance, a GRDDL-aware agent would not be able to > assume much about the IR behind the RDF rendition. > > -- Chimezie > > -- <mikael@nilsson.name> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 08:08:35 UTC