Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

On 2009-02-24 18:18, "ext Eran Hammer-Lahav" <> wrote:

> Both of which are included in my analysis [1] for the discovery proposal.

A few notes:

The statement "Minimum roundtrips to retrieve the resource descriptor: 2" is
not correct for URIQA.  Only one is needed.

URIQA also supports self declaration. The descriptor returned can of course
include statements about the descriptor itself, though typically the
descriptor would be a CBD by default, which would not. Still, no reason why
it couldn't.

Not sure why you would consider "Scale and Technology Agnostic" a negative,
since in real practice, if you have a server that is going to offer
authoritative metadata, you have to enhance the server in some manner (e.g.
to insert links, etc.) so being able to modularly add a component which
doesn't intrude upon the existing core web server functionality, but can
operate in an auxilliary fashion, satisfying requests for metadata in a
manner not intrinsically tied to how representations are served, is a plus
in my book. And solutions such as link forces content publishers to mint
extra URIs to identify the descriptors explicitly, when usually, clients
don't care about the identity of the descriptor, they just want the
metadata. So again, "technology agnostic" = "modular" in my book, and that's
always a plus.

Perhaps you should split URIQA from PROPFIND since your summary of PROPFIND
does not correctly capture its properties, and suggests URIQA is essentially
equivalent, which it clearly is not.



> [1]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Julian Reschke []
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:45 AM
>> To:
>> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav;;; www-
>> Subject: Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Agents which want to deal with authoritative metadata use
>> MGET/MPUT/etc.
>>> ...
>> Same with PROPFIND and PROPPATCH, btw.
>> BR, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 16:47:05 UTC