|
|
OAI-ORE |
On Aug 18, 9:02 am, Simeon Warner <sim...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
> The fundamental reason why we don't have Aggregation == resource and
The domain model for ORE is still unclear to me, but on this one point
Jeff
> 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.
> 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 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).
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.