[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Regrep: I2C questions
I'm addressing this (separately) to the OASIS Regrep list, the EBXML Regrep list, and the RFC 2483 authors. Quite a few issues arose during Thursday's OASIS Regrep TC meeting in San Jose. This is one of them: how to specify a request for metadata about a resource. In RFC 2483 (THTTP), as written originally and as I've revised it unofficially, there is a resolution service request "I2C" (was L2C/N2C). As revised, the relevant section reads: =================================================================== 3.5 I2C (URI to URC): ---------------------- URCs (Uniform Resource Characteristics) are descriptions of other resources. This request allows us to obtain a description of the resource identified by a URN, as opposed to the resource itself. The description might be a bibliographic citation, a digital signature, a revision history, etc. This document does not specify the content of any response to a URC request. That content is expected to vary from one resolver to another. The format of any response to an I2C request MUST be communicated using the Content Type header, as is standard HTTP practice. The Accept: header SHOULD be honored. =================================================================== The request would be an HTTP GET with a URL something like http://xml.org/registry/I2C?urn:foo:12345-54321 As designed, this request allows for format negotiation over the format of the URC, which for the purpose of OASIS could be in more than one format (HTML or XML, for example) but would always contain the same set of ISO/IEC 11179-specified metadata (the same content). "URC" doesn't specify content, however, and I'm concerned that format negotiation is not well suited to content negotiation. So I had floated the idea of making a separate request, call it I2X, for the OASIS-specified content (link to resource plus list of links to all related data). As I began to think about extensions and certain in-house uses of THTTP, I began to wonder whether it was such a good idea to break out different requests for different sets of metadata. I can also see that the information returned might be determined in part on the status of the requestor (you might hide some contact info for the Submitting Org from general public, for example). These considerations lead me to two questions: Is it acceptable for OASIS Regrep purposes that an I2C request returns 11179 metadata from an OASIS-conformant registry, but may return something else from some other URI resolver? Is it acceptable for OASIS Regrep purposes that the information returned from an I2C request may be a different set (from among the totality of information held by the registry) from one request to another, depending on the registry's business rules and the requestor's status? regards, Terry
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC