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"
The belief that "representations don't have their own id" seems to be
> 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
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
Jeff 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.
| ||||||||||||||