- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:30:13 -0700
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
See inline All the best, Ashok Jonathan Rees wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, ashok > malhotra<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eran: >> Trying to understand your proposal. >> By 'abstract' do you mean URIs for which a representation cannot be >> retrieved? >> So, perhaps, a chair? >> My assumption was that for such resources you want to retrieve the metadata. >> > > Quibble: In the case of a chair, you can't get metadata, since a chair > isn't data. > http://www.google.com/search?q=define:metadata > [AM] Picky, picky :-) > This is why it's nice that Eran calls the description resource a > "description resource" instead of a "metadata resource". LRDD is a > compatible alternative to linked-data 303 nose-following, one that > (like 303, as David Booth has pointed out) behaves uniformly without > caring whether the resource is "data"-like or not - it means you don't > have to ask or answer that question. I advocate using his terminology. > [AM] Yes, description resource is better, > Perhaps an alternative to a new URI scheme for hosts would be loop > detection inside of LRDD? I think that's close to what you're saying. > [AM] I wrote the note mainly to make sure I understood Eran's usecase, Your suggestion has merit. Let's see what he says. > -Jonathan > >
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 17:31:14 UTC