Message from discussion Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question

MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.93.13 with SMTP id q13mr72167agb.1.1218849444706; Fri, 15 
	Aug 2008 18:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20080814194905.GA1749@ice.cs.cornell.edu>
X-IP: 24.95.37.93
References: <15c4095c-12ba-4ef4-9865-db0d234d184c@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> 
	<20080814194905.GA1749@ice.cs.cornell.edu>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) 
	Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <028312c8-afeb-4826-ac62-9d1a4ddd198e@f63g2000hsf.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



On Aug 14, 3:49=A0pm, Simeon Warner <sim...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
> > "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.

I think I see the source of my confusion now. This isn't the
difference between English and AWWW et al. It's the difference between
HTTP and those other things. From an HTTP perspective, a Resource Map
would make for a perfectly reasonable representation. If the documents
that have been cited so far explain this somewhere I might accept it,
although it is damned confusing of them to redefine words like
"representation" that way.