Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

On 2009-02-24 11:09, "Stickler Patrick (Nokia-S/Espoo)"
<Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On 2009-02-23 23:10, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>
>>> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>>> Date: February 19, 2009 12:56:21 PM EST
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 16:32 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>> Pursuant to ACTION-200 (XRD use case), requested by Dan C:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uniform-
>>>> access-20090205.html#cross_site
>>>>
>>>> This is rather quick and dirty, so let me know how you'd like to see
>>>> it improved.
>>>
>>> It makes sense, though you correctly " anticipate that some will
>>> object
>>> that the information should have been put in the representation (i.e.
>>> found via GET)"
>>
>> First, not all representations are capable of embedding such metadata (i.e.
>> video, audio, etc.). Second, there are as many people who find it
>> objectionable to mix data and metadata within the same representation.
>
> FWIW, this is one of the key motivators for the distinct URIQA methods.
>
> Agents which want to deal with representations use GET/PUT/etc..
>
> Agents which want to deal with authoritative metadata use MGET/MPUT/etc.
>
> Same URI in either case. All you need is the URI.
>
> No worries about how to "link" to the metadata and what link URI to
> use/mint.

And no worries about different alternative encodings/serializations for the
metadata. Content negotiation works the same for MGET as for GET. Serve
RDF/XML as the default, but offer any other flavor you like.

Patrick

>
> No worries about whether there is any representation available. Can only be
> metadata.
>
> No double-requests (GET/HEAD to find link, GET link to get metadata) for
> agents that only want metadata.
>
> ....
>
> Patrick
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 09:42:21 UTC