|
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: Simeon Warner <sim...@cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:49:05 -0400
Local: Fri, Aug 15 2008 5:49 am
Subject: Re: Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:48:47AM -0700, Jeff Young wrote: Well, this is a difference between English and the Architecture of the > I'm trying to put together a UML class diagram for ORE, and I'm > puzzled by these statements in section 3.1 of the "ORE-User Guide - > Primer": > http://www.openarchives.org/ore/0.9/primer.html#Aggregation > "An Aggregation does not have a representation..." > Is this still the current thinking? If so, what's wrong with Resource 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. 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. > I understand that a Resource Map is a description of an Aggregation I think we will drop the information resource and non-information > and not the Aggregation itself. This is true in the same sense that a > metadata record is not the same as a book. Nevertheless, it is fair to > say that a metadata record is a reasonable representation of a book. > If this was accepted, the questionable reference to an Aggregation resource terminology as it just muddies the water. Cheers, 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.
| |||||||||||||