On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Jeni Tennison <[email protected]> wrote: > Jonathan, > > On 27 Mar 2012, at 14:02, Jonathan A Rees wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> This whole "information resource" thing needs to just go away. I can't >> believe how many people come back to it after the mistake has been >> pointed out so many times. Maybe the TAG or someone has to make a >> statement admitting that the way httpRange-14(a) was phrased was a big >> screwup, that the real issue is content vs. description, not a type >> distinction. > > Yes, that may help. But then we would also have to define what 'content' and > 'description' meant. I have a feeling that might prove just as slippery and > ultimately unhelpful as 'information resource'.
I disagree. I've been able to reverse engineer a semantics [1] for 'content' that matches the original RDF design (for metadata, [2]) and what I think was *intended* by httpRange-14(a). The 'information resource' definition is just really unactionable; perhaps reparable but I don't think repairing it would help much since that's not even the issue. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-971002/ Maybe I've made a mistake or have been unclear. This is just what I think and nobody's talked me out of yet (despite invitations). >> I think Jeni's proposal is to say that the Flickr URI is good >> practice, rather than deny it. My proposal is to say that the >> description-free situation is good practice, rather than just an >> undocumented common practice. > > Let's call it 'The Explicit Description Link Change Proposal'; it isn't > "mine" except in so far as I coordinated its drafting and submitted it. ok > Anyway, it doesn't say that the Flickr URI is good practice, it just says > that clients can't make any assumptions one way or the other about whether > the retrieved representation is content or description unless it contains > explicit statements or the description is reached through a description link > (303 redirect; 'describedby' Link: header). > > Good practice would be for Flickr to use separate URIs for 'the photograph' > and 'the description of the photograph', to ensure that 'the description of > the photograph' was reachable from 'the photograph' and to ensure that any > statements referred to the correct one. Under the proposal, they could change > to this good practice in four ways: > > 1. by adding: > > <link rel="describedby" href="#main" /> > > to their page (or pointing to some other URL that they choose to use for 'the > description of the photograph') > > 2. by adding a Link: header with a 'describedby' relationship that points at > a separate URI for 'the description of the photograph' (possibly a fragment > as in 1?) Sorry, I didn't get why these are said to be better practice than the current Flickr page - how the document distinguishes the two cases. Does it say there 'should' or 'must' be a describedby? If the info resource assumption is gone, won't the Flickr page [still?] be understood the way Flickr intends? I'll have to study the proposal again (sorry, very hurried now, can't keep up) Best Jonathan > 3. by switching to using > http://www.flickr.com/photos/70365734@N00/6905069277/#photo or something > everywhere the photograph was referred to, adding: > > <link about="#photo" rel="describedby" href="" /> > > in their page and adding about="#photo" on the body element in the HTML so > that the RDFa statements in the page were about the photograph > > 4. by introducing support for a new page > http://www.flickr.com/photos/70365734@N00/6905069277/description and adding a > 303 redirection from http://www.flickr.com/photos/70365734@N00/6905069277/ to > that URL > > The first two methods are only feasible under the proposal; the others are > things they could do now. > > Cheers, > > Jeni > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com >
