Message from discussion
Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.119.20 with SMTP id r20mr73313agc.29.1218853690751; Fri, 15
Aug 2008 19:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <028312c8-afeb-4826-ac62-9d1a4ddd198e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
X-IP: 24.95.37.93
References: <15c4095c-12ba-4ef4-9865-db0d234d184c@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
<20080814194905.GA1749@ice.cs.cornell.edu> <028312c8-afeb-4826-ac62-9d1a4ddd198e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
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: <84d06a7b-b4b9-4b2e-870c-06ad72015ef3@79g2000hsk.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: 7bit
Sorry. Let me admit that this sentence from my last message doesn't
add up:
> From an HTTP perspective, a Resource Map
> would make for a perfectly reasonable representation.
I understand that a Resource Map is not a representation, it is a
resource that has representations. I still suspect there is a point to
what I was saying, but I'm afraid that this sentence might permanently
undermine it. If I'm lucky, I'll go insane before I have time to
reword it. ;-)
|
