Re: Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
Jeff Young <jyoung.o...@gmail.com>
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.
Jeff
