On 1 May 2005, at 18:18, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 2/5/05 1:51 AM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would +1 allowing identical IDs if it was required that the entries sharing an ID had different sources.
perhaps we need to explain the concept of 'entries' (as resources), as
distinct from <entry>s (as representations), and explain that 'entries' must
have unique IDs, and that the <atom:id> element of any <atom:entry> ties it
back to the 'entry' resource. It would then follow that multiple <entry>
representations which happen to have the same <atom:id> value are just
different representations of the source 'entry', and possibly even different
instantiations in time.
Exactly. I think this will help dissolve the issue very easily.
The way I am currently thinking of this is as follows.
The <entry>....</entry> xml we find in a atom feed is a time stamped
representation of a resource. It is the state of a resource at a particular
time. Or perhaps better: it is metadata about the state of a resource at
a particular time.
If we then think of the entry id as a resource, then we may think of all of
these xml representations as representations of that id, where the representations
each specify the date and time of their validity. Because the representations
contain the date and time of their validity they can be placed in a collection
without ambiguity.
So there is a little distinction we need to be careful of: an "<entry>...</entry>"
representation is a representation *of* the id resource, but these representations
are *about* the state of some other resources at a particular time (most notably the
link "alternate" resource).
Henry Story http://bblfish.net/blog/
e.
