Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question - OAI-ORE

Message from discussion Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20080814194905.GA1749@ice.cs.cornell.edu>
References: <15c4095c-12ba-4ef4-9865-db0d234d184c@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> 
	<20080814194905.GA1749@ice.cs.cornell.edu>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Message-ID: <33e12845-00c9-4b95-9eae-b3d9f3d6706b@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
From: Jeff Young <jyoung.o...@gmail.com>
To: OAI-ORE <oai-ore@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

On Aug 14, 3:49=A0pm, 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.