Xiaoshu, This is a beautiful synopsis of the problem - THANK YOU for
taking the time to write it up as well as you did! I will be using this
in my lectures for sure! :-)
What made me chuckle was how similar the DFDF concept is to the LSID
concept... except that the LSID doesn't rely on any HTTP response codes to
determine what is what (it's all explicit, since there is no way to ask a
URI what it is but to query the metadata; and there is no concept of
content-negotiation in LSIDs since all various representations should be
referred to explicitly in the metadata... so there are no shortcuts to
getting the representation that you desire)
Given that we have millions (billions?) of URLs out there in the world,
isn't it a bit optimistic to assume that they will all suddenly become
adherent to whatever we decide here?
Personally, I am inclined to place my trust in a Semantic Web where I know
that the URIs I encounter are guarateed to have the behaviour that I
expect. If I can't guarantee that from a URL (and I know that I can't),
then I can at least code my software to be more trusting of other kinds of
URIs... and non-trusting of URLs...
...na?
M
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:51:17 -0800, Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have written down my thoughts on the URI's identity issue and some web
architecture issues at "http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch";. The
writing mostly starts from the issue of "information resource" and
httpRange-14 but touched on how we are suppose to view the web
architecture.
I think that I had contributed a great deal to bring the issue of
"information resource and 303" to this mailing list. But now I think
back, my understanding in the past appeared to be wrong. Hopefully,
from this position paper, you may understand why I have changed my
thinking so it may help you to understand the topic as well.
Xiaoshu
