> Thanks for the feedback Simeon. I admit that I need to review AWWW and
> will do so ASAP.

> On Aug 14, 3:49 pm, Simeon Warner <sim...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:

>> Well, this is a difference between English and the Architecture of  
>> the
>> World Wide Web [AWWW] document. In English I think one could
>> reasonably say that the Resource Map is a representation of an
>> Aggregation. However, in the language of AWWW there is no bitstream
>> for resource A-1 obtained via content negotiation so no
>> representation.

> I can believe that AWWW recognizes the possibility of resources
> without bitstreams, but I will be surprised if it dictates that an RDF
> graph is such a resource. It's difficult to imagine why a set of
> triples can't be a content-negotiable resource.

>> One does get either redirected to resource R-1 from
>> which a representation is available, or -- as a shortcut -- one  
>> gets a
>> represenation of R-1 back with a header saying that is is from R-1  
>> and
>> not from A-1.

> It's also hard for me to imagine why an HTTP redirect shouldn't be
> understood as a type of resource representation. I'd have to look
> closer, but I don't recall anything in HTTP/1.1 that undermines this
> interpretation. Maybe AWWW deals with this too. If so, I fear that it
> is splitting hairs that are already too thin and obscure.