Message from discussion Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question

MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.11.7 with SMTP id 7mr27788ank.13.1219264791197; Wed, 20 
	Aug 2008 13:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <84d06a7b-b4b9-4b2e-870c-06ad72015ef3@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
X-IP: 132.174.124.40
References: <15c4095c-12ba-4ef4-9865-db0d234d184c@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> 
	<20080814194905.GA1749@ice.cs.cornell.edu> <028312c8-afeb-4826-ac62-9d1a4ddd198e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> 
	<84d06a7b-b4b9-4b2e-870c-06ad72015ef3@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16) 
	Gecko/20080702 Firefox/2.0.0.16,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <970ee93e-a460-4061-a1db-1abb53f8fe8d@x41g2000hsb.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

For the record, I think I understand the error of this earlier
statement. I won't go into the details because it's likely that no one
cares. If I've confused others by this sophistry the way I confused
myself, let me know and I can try to undo the damage.

Fortunately or unfortunately, this was a minor tangent to my main
confusion. I won't address that here, though.

Jeff

On Aug 15, 10:28 pm, Jeff Young <jyoung.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. ;-)
>