Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
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
 
Jeff Young  
View profile  
 More options Aug 19 2008, 1:26 am
From: Jeff Young <jyoung.o...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Aug 19 2008 1:26 am
Subject: Re: Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
On Aug 18, 9:02 am, Simeon Warner <sim...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:

> I think this is why we (try to) avoid use of the word "representation"
> in the ORE docs except in the strict web architecture sense, e.g when
> describing the whe web architecture athttp://www.openarchives.org/ore/0.9/primer.html#Web_Arch.

> The fundamental reason why we don't have Aggregation == resource and
> Resource Map == representation is that we think they both need to have
> identifiers so that we can talk about them. In the web architecture,
> resources have URIs as identifiers but representions don't have have
> their own id (they are determined/"identified" by the resource URI,
> time, request info, phase of moon, etc.).

The belief that "representations don't have their own id" seems to be
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 domain model for ORE is still unclear to me, but on this one point
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.

Jeff


    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