Re: Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
Simeon Warner <sim...@cs.cornell.edu>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:48:47AM -0700, Jeff Young wrote:
> 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..."
> "the Aggregation URI A-1 must yield or lead to a Resource Map when
> dereferenced."
> Is this still the current thinking? If so, what's wrong with Resource
> Maps being accepted as representations of the Aggregation?
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. 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
> 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
> being a "non-information resource" could be dropped.
I think we will drop the information resource and non-information
resource terminology as it just muddies the water.
Cheers,
Simeon
