Let me skip right to the core of your answer.
On 3 Apr 2005, at 00:06, Thomas Broyer wrote:
What about:
[[
The value "alternate" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource whose representations are an alternate version of the resource described by the containing element.
]]
The question is here: what is "the resource described by the containing element" referring to?
As I argued in a previous post to this thread [1] my belief is that this is the resource
named by the id of the entry. I did not make that aspect of my thinking visible in the graph
attached to my previous mail [2] so I will now, by adding the representation relations
(named "repres") in the following graph:
<<inline: Atom-related.jpg>>
The "<entry>..." in green and in yellow are representation of the <urn:uuid:1225...> resource,
just as the yellow "<html>..." and "<xhtml>..." representations are representation of the
<else.html> resource, and the green "<html>..." and "<xhtml>..." representation are of the
<displaced.html> resource.
Now if I look at your definition above you are relating two resource the same way the
current spec does. Say we had an "alternate" link on the green "<entry>...", then your
definition would be relating the <urn:uuid:1225...> resource to the <displaced.html>
resource.
But what I don't understand is that you are saying the representations of <displaced.html>
namely the green html and xhml representations are alternate versions of <urn:uuid:1225>.
How can representations be alternate versions of a resource?
Perhaps you mean that they are alternate versions of the representations described by the
<urn:uuid:1225...>?
[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13940.html [2] see: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13959.html
Henry Story wrote:On 1 Apr 2005, at 19:52, Thomas Broyer wrote:Taking back Eric's example:ok. <...somethingelse.atom> would be the next resource. Though I think the next link was meant for feeds, and has been moved over to the API
<entry>
...
<link rel="http://example.org/rels#next";
href="http://example.net/somethingelse.atom"; />
...
</entry>
My interpretation is that "...somethingelse.atom" is the next (entry or whatever is defined by the @rel value herein) from the point of view of the entry containing the link element.> document.
This is not the same "next" relationship...
yes. But it ends up being taken that way. So in the end things get a little confusing.
[sniped and copied to head of mail]
So it is a little unfortunate to be basing your argument on an example> that is not in the spec, and that if it were would be attached to the > feed.
Well, feeds also carry link elements with a possible "alternate" value for their rel attribute...
> what we have to say is that "me" is an alternate representation of theIf you replace the @rel with @rel="alternate", then "...somethingelse.atom" is an alternate representation of "me" ("me" being the entry carrying the link element).no. <...omething.else.atom> is a resource, not a representation [1].
So what you mean to say is that <...somethingelse.atom> is an alternate resource of me. But that won't do since "me" is a representation. Hence<...somethingelse.atom> resource.
Ok, I finally understand what you mean...
Actually, the problem is applying "alternate version" to "resource" rather than "representation of a resource".
I really don't see the problem
"<entry>...</entry>" ---alternate---> <..else.html>
think of it as a short hand for
"<entry>...</entry>" ---alternate-representation-of---> <..else.html>
But the former one says (fmpov) something like "...else.html" is an alternate of "entry" while the latter says "entry" is an alternate (representation) of "...else.html".
You are switching the directions of the meanings (ok, without switching the directions of the arrow... that's something like active/passive forms in grammar)
Perhaps we should first get to agree on the arrows we want, and then try to work out
how the english is going to express the arrows we want. I think we both agree on the
direction of the arrows.
Here we are!> is an alternative representation (alternative is happily quite vague) of
As I said above this is not a causal relationship. We are not saying that
the <entry>...</entry> representation is "known" by the hrefed resource, that it can produce it, or anything like that. We are just saying that it
> the remote resource.
yes
whichever is the "primary" representation... Well, in a few words: they are alternate representations of the same thing."They" meaning what?
<...else.html> and "<entry>...</entry>" are not both representations only the second one is.
The problem with the web-arch "language" is that once you print a web page (a representation of a resource), it (the printed sheets) is not the same resource any more (if I understand correctly). Though the still are resources/representations/call-how-you-want of the same "thing".
what you mean is that <...else.html> has many representations. Some of these are html
ones that it produces, others are atom ones that are produced by others. We have something
like this
<...else.html> ---representation---> "<html><body>...</body></html>"
|-----------representation---> "<xhtml><body>...</body></xhtml>"
|
|-----------representation---> "<entry>...</entry>"
If we now distinguish between cause and uncaused ones (call crep and rep)
<...else.html> ---crep---> "<html><body>...</body></html>"
|-----------crep---> "<xhtml><body>...</body></xhtml>"
| ^
| |
| similar
| |
|-----------rep---> "<entry>...</entry>"
now "similar" is indeed a bi-directional representation. And I think you
are speaking of the similar relation just illustrated.
Yes, but why not call it "alternate"?
no problem. In the graph I ended up calling it tom:alternate. [2]
-- Thomas Broyer
