Re: Representation of a secondary resource?
"Plato Foofas" <[email protected]> Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:13:34 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.voice,gmane.comp.web.css.general,gmane.comp.web.xforms,gmane.comp.web.html.general,gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.agents,gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.guidelines,gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dan, <BR><BR>thanks for the reply. Most of it satisfies me, with one except= ion. <BR><BR>Section 3.1.1 linked below mentions neither fragment IDs nor s= econdary<BR>resources, but in HTTP the fragment ID is not a part of the URI= used in<BR>the HTTP request. Currently, there is no space in the eight poi= nts in<BR>3.1.1 where fragment ID would be handled. <BR><BR>It could be a p= art of point 8, but it currently says the agent<BR>interprets the represent= ation, with no apparent room for generating out<BR>of that a representation= of the secondary resource, according to the<BR>fragment handling described= by the media type etc.<BR><BR>So currently section 3.1.1 basically implies= that secondary resources<BR>don't have representations, at least in HTTP. = Whatever the position of<BR>the TAG on this, it should be mentioned explici= tly in 3.1.1.<BR><BR>Best regards,<BR><BR> &nb= sp; = Jacek Kopecky<BR><BR>  = ; Ph.D. student resea= rcher<BR> = Digital Enterprise Research Inst= itute, Innsbruck<BR> &= nbsp; <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 15:2= 5, Dan Connolly wrote:<BR>> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 10:54, Jacek Kopecky w= rote:<BR>> > Hi, sorry I missed the deadline, but perhaps this questi= on could also be<BR>> > considered as a last-call comment on the curr= ent AWWW document.<BR>> > <BR>> > The document mentions seconda= ry resources but does not seem to talk<BR>> > about dereferencing the= m and about the resulting representation (nor<BR>> > does rfc 2396 bi= s).<BR>> > <BR>> > Currently, a secondary resource may be some = portion or subset of the<BR>> > primary resource, some view on repres= entations of the primary resource,<BR>> > or some other resource defi= ned or described by those representations.<BR>> > (sec 2.6)<BR>> <= BR>> <BR>> Yes, this section needed work. After consideration of your= s<BR>> and other comments, we've revised the text:<BR>> <BR>> [[<B= R>> The terms =93primary=94 and =93secondary=94 in this context do not l= imit the<BR>> nature of the resource=97they are not classes. In this con= text, primary<BR>> and secondary simply indicate that there is a relatio= nship between the<BR>> resources for the purposes of one URI: the URI wi= th a fragment<BR>> identifier. Any resource can be identified as a secon= dary resource. It<BR>> might also be identified using a URI without a fr= agment identifier, and<BR>> a resource may be identified as a secondary = resource via multiple URIs.<BR>> The purpose of these terms is to enable= discussion of the relationship<BR>> between such resources, not to limi= t the nature of a resource.<BR>> ]]<BR>> -- 2.6. Fragment Ident= ifiers<BR>> Editor's Draft 19 October 2004<BR>> <BR>> = <BR>> <BR>> > But does the secondary resource have a representatio= n itself? I'd expect<BR>> > that if it's some view on representations= of the primary resource, the<BR>> > view is the representation, but = if it's some other resource defined or<BR>> > described by the repres= entations of the primary resource, then it<BR>> > doesn't seem to hav= e a representation itself.<BR>> <BR>> I hope the above text clarifies= .. As an example,<BR>> chapter 3 of a book might be referred to ala<BR>&g= t; <rdf:Description rdf:about=3D"#chapter3"><BR>>  = ; <dc:description>a thrilling rid= e...</><BR>> = > </rdf:Description&= gt;<BR>> in myFavoriteWorks.rdf , so that chapter 3 is<BR>> secondary= to myFavoriteWorks. But as you can see, that same<BR>> resource is iden= tified<BR>> and might have subsections <BR>> and so on; so chap= ter3 is primary to those subsections.<BR>> <BR>> see also<BR>> <BR= >> 3.1.1. Details of retrieving a representation<BR>> <BR>> <BR>&g= t; <BR>> > Is it significant to consider then the question of when is= a secondary<BR>> > resource also an information resource (aka web re= source)? I believe it<BR>> > might be very beneficial to point out th= at some secondary resources are<BR>> > not in fact web resources and = could represent, say, the usual "my dog". <BR>> <BR>> While the TAG h= as chosen a definition for "information resource,"<BR>> we have not deci= ded how it relates to http URI syntax; we have<BR>> not closed issue.<BR= >> <BR>> > This could then lead to what I think would be a good pr= actice:<BR>> > <BR>> > Worldly objects (people, cars, pets) sho= uld be considered secondary<BR>> > resources and defined/described by= the representations of their<BR>> > respective primary resources.<BR= >> <BR>> I hope you'll agree that it's best that we publish what we h= ave<BR>> before attempting to adopt such a good practice note.<BR>> <= BR>> Please let us know whether this response to your comment is<BR>>= satisfactory.<BR>> <BR>> > Best regards,<BR>> > <BR>> &g= t; &= nbsp; Jacek Kopecky<BR>> > <BR>&g= t; > &n= bsp; Ph.D. student researcher<A h= ref=3D"http://incest-taboo.org/">.</A><BR>> > = &nb= sp; Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck<BR>> &g= t; <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR= >> > <BR><BR> --=20 <p>___________________________________________________________<br>Sign-up f= or Ads Free at Mail.com<br> <a href=3D"http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode= =3Dadsfreejump01" target=3D"_blank">http://www.mail.com/?sr=3Dsignup</a></p>