Re: Uniform access to descriptions

Eric J. Bowman wrote:
> Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>   
>>> Client dereferences [a], preferring application/rdf+xml.  Response
>>> to [a] is 200 OK, Content-Location [d].  Thus, it may be inferred
>>> that [d] is also a variant of the resource identified by [a],
>>> "topic".  This works perfectly well, if in fact [d] is an RDF
>>> representation of "topic" and not a description of resource [a] as
>>> "a wiki page". However, what if topic.rdf contains only the
>>> assertion that [a] "is a" "wiki page", which *is* a description of
>>> resource [a]? 
>>>       
>> All of them are /descriptions/.  I failed to follow what is the 
>> difference between /representation/ vs. /description/. In fact, I 
>> wouldn't prefer to give [b,c,d] a different URI.  I.e., there is no 
>> Content-Location.  And I do have a concrete use case described at 
>> http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch, where alternative location is
>> not preferred. 
>>     
>
> You can omit Content-Location if you want, my example uses that header
> to clarify what's going on.  It is a best-practice to include Content-
> Location, otherwise you are disabling caching.  In such a case, your
> variant representations are not awww:resources or even Information
> Resources, though, so it's definitely a fringe case.  If I were stuck
> in the position you describe, I would re-factor my architecture to
> conform with mainstream Web usage.
>   
Eric, can you try to read the latest threads on TAG list and understand 
what is at debate here?  Here is what Pat has articulated, 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0139.html.  And 
http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch is my analysis on the issue last 
November.   But many other latest posting would be helpful too.  (Not to 
convince you but just want us to start more meaningful discussion on 
equal footing, O.K.)

You might have read.  I make the above suggestion is by guessing from 
your wording in this sentence "In such a case, your variant 
representations are not awww:resources or even Information Resources 
...".  Because I believe if you do read the past two or three weeks of 
postings, you should know how *inappropriate* (not a true or false 
issue) to use awww:resources and IR as a criteria here.

Regards,

Xiaoshu

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 00:01:23 UTC