Re: Uniform access

On Jun 13, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Jun 13, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> At the TAG face-to-face meeting in Bristol on 20 May 2008, the TAG  
>> took up the issue of the appropriate use (if any) of the HTTP  
>> Link: response header, with consideration of design alternatives  
>> and issues as summarized in [2]. After a lively discussion, we  
>> agreed as follows:
>> "The TAG endorses 
>> link-header-01.txt and standardization of the HTTP Link: header  
>> for use cases such as POWDER and metadata about fixed resources,  
>> and GRDDL transformation links"
> Why mention of "fixed resources" specifically? Is this meant to  
> supply that responses to requests about "generic resources" should  
> not use link headers?
> -Alan

Dan C gave the advice not to endorse technology for technology's  
sake, and suggested a few specific applications as for-instances.  
This idea met with general approval. Although I can't speak for  
others, I did not take the statement as particularly restrictive -  
thus the "such as". The mention of "fixed resources" (perhaps from  
Tim?) I think was designed to indicate a relatively uncontroversial  
case and did not mean to say other kinds of things couldn't have  
Link:s. Perhaps it was simply meant to bypass any discussion of the  
resource/representation distinction or instability through time,  
things no one wanted to talk about as we had handled the request from  
the POWDER WG and had other matters to get to.

I imagine there will be further discussions here about what kinds of  
discipline on Link: will be helpful, especially around resource  
descriptions (metadata) for consumption by semantic web applications.


Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 16:06:35 UTC