|
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
From: Jeff Young <jyoung.o...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Aug 15 2008 10:49 am
Subject: Re: Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
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
I can believe that AWWW recognizes the possibility of resources
> 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. 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
It's also hard for me to imagine why an HTTP redirect shouldn't be
> 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. 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. Jeff You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||