|
|
OAI-ORE |
That certainly appears to be a resource: it has a URI and when
Now I show you these URIs:
http://foo.edu/bar
and tell that the last two URIs identify possible representations
The AWWW + friends introduce the concepts of "information resource"
regards,
Michael
> The domain model for ORE is still unclear to me, but on this one point
> Jeff > The belief that "representations don't have their own id" seems to be
That is where there is a discrepancy between RFC 2616 and AWW. In
> the root of the problem here. In HTTP, representations CAN have their
> own identifiers (URIs) and thus can be addressed individually. As
> evidence, the Content-Location header exists to notify a client of
> this fact (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.14). The
> possibility of representation identifiers is even clearer in the case
> of 300 Multiple Choices (http://tools.ietf.org/html/
> rfc2616#section-10.3.1).
the http RFC, representations can have their own URIs. The AWWW
seems to tip-toe around this. Consider:
dereferenced it returns a representation (or, more likely, a
"variant" in RFC-2616 terms).
http://foo.edu/bar.abc
http://foo.edu/bar.xyz
for the 1st URI. That means "http://foo.edu/bar.abc" is both a
resource in its own right *and* a representation for another
resource. Effectively, its both a 1st and 2nd class citizen. RFC
2616 doesn't directly address this apparent inconsistency of URIs
identifying both a resource and representation. Its perfectly
obvious and reasonable from an implementation point of view, but
its really non-sensical from a modeling point of view.
(i.e., web things like html and pdf) and "non-information resource"
(i.e., real world things like cars and sandwiches) and 303 redirects
(which can be thought of as a generalized version of http content
negotiation as defined in RFC-2295). IMO, this is the opposite of
the above: it makes sense from a modeling point of view but is silly
from an implementation point of view ("so the only thing this URI
will *ever* do is redirect me to this other URI? ok...")
> it seems like some heavyweight sources are being cited to work around
> a relatively simple confusion. Somehow this workaround has come full-
> circle and produced a resource without a representation that resolves
> to a response that is indistinguishable from a representation. This
> circularity implies that there are some concepts in ORE that can be
> factored out.