Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
OAI-ORE
Home
+ new post
Pages
Files
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
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:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Robert Sanderson  
View profile  
 More options Aug 19 2008, 6:10 pm
From: "Robert Sanderson" <azarot...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:10:49 +0100
Local: Tues, Aug 19 2008 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Peter Keane <pke...@mail.utexas.edu>wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Robert Sanderson <azarot...@gmail.com>wrote:

>> As Dewitt Clinton of OpenSearch fame says, "Code talks, everything else
>> walks".
>> Well ... in my implementation experience[1], the current specifications
>> are very readily implementable.  In fact the Atom serialisation was by FAR
>> the hardest part, to the point of total nightmare to get right.

> But would some or all of that difficulty be cleared up by the new Atom
> serialization proposal (
> http://www.openarchives.org/ore/documents/atom_revision_20080801.html)?
> The new serialization seems like it would be easy to implement and from the
> client side easier to make use of (in many cases) than an RDF-based
> serialization.

Yes, the new specification makes it much easier, and seems much more in line
with the way people actually *use* Atom.  From the client side, you can now
probably get by with a parser that only understands Atom, rather than one
that also understands ORE's Atom spec.

That said, the inherent difficulty comes from using an RDF model underneath
in order to serialise the RDF formats, and to allow for arbitrary triples,
and then layering what is effectively an object model over top (with
Aggregations, Resources, Resource Maps, Agents and so forth)

> What I meant is that  I fear a tight coupling between servers and clients
> vis-a-vis what is a representation and what is a resource instead of
> sticking with MIME types and hypermedia as the basis for the "contract" --
> therein I see the benefit of a set of specifications in which atom:link@reland atom:category and such like are critical.

Yep.  I think the new spec does a better job of re-using Atom's linking
constructions appropriately (ob. disclaimer of authorship aside)

Rob


    Reply to author    Forward  
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.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google