Proceedings Template - WORD

Towards An Optimal Data Model for Web
Resource Transmission

Bing Swen

Computer Science Technology Dept., Peking University, Beijing 100871, CHINA


1.    Introduction

In this paper we revisit a simple idea for further improving Web performance, namely to "batch-transmit" a web page and all of its related objects (such as embedded images, scripts, style sheets, applets, etc.) within a single exchange of request and response. This idea seems quite natural, is not new, and keeps occurring from both research literature and informal discussion occasions (for references see [1,2]). But as weve learned, the problem is actually more complicated than it may have seemed, involving many fundamental issues of the current HTTP and posing interesting questions as well as difficulties for investigation. The purpose of this paper is to try to understand an appropriate way to construct a comprehensive batch model that is not limited to special uses.


Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

WWW 2003, May 20-24, 2003, Budapest, Hungary.

ACM xxx.

The data retrieval model used by HTTP is known to be a one request for one resource model, which may seem inefficient and inappropriate for Web content distribution as a Web page usually consists of multiple resources (or called embedded objects). This model can be particularly awkward when applied to revalidate retrieval (reload) of Web pages. One may argue that in an imagined optimal model, one request and one response should be sufficient for the exchange of necessary metainformation details, and the revalidation of all static contents should cause no actual message passing. But this problem is related to an inherent conflict between batch-transmission and partial updating of aggregate resources, which seems insurmountable within the framework of HTTP.

According to Mogul [3], Many of the problems with HTTP can be traced to unfortunate choices about fundamental definitions and models. In particular, HTTP lacks a clear and consistent data type model. As we understand, the structured hypertext nature of Web pages presents us a new data model of HTTP that is applicable to the batch-transmission issue, as well as a SOAP/1.1 like HTTP binding scheme to apply the model.

2.    The Structured HTML Description

A major problem with HTML is that it serves as a resource transfer control method by HTTP. HTTP relies heavily on the utility of URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers). URI is intended to tag individual resources on the Web. But in the context of HTTP, a URI of a hypertexted (HTML) Web page actually identifies a set of aggregate resources (with their own URIs), and access to such a URI usually involves multiple resources transmission. This complexity may cause a semantic and operational gap between the HTML description of Web resources and a URI-based transmission or caching control model. We thus may regard this inconsistency as an implication that HTML is not an optimal description of Web pages from the perspective of efficient data transmission. A Web page presented by HTML is not well structured in that metainformation of the related individual resources cannot be effectively presented and used. In general HTML per se is too primitive to be best suitable for the efficient control of resource transmission. Thus a higher-level abstraction may well be useful.

The metainformation of a Web page and its related resources can be formulated as a tree structure. Each tree node, as a resource (or according to Moguls clarified model, an instance of a resource), has its detailed metainformation, such as information of the size, position offset, time of creation and modification, entity tag (ETag), cache control info, etc of each resource. Appending these metainformation descriptions on the nodes, the Web page would be represented by a well-formed tree (or an XML document).

If the server and the client could exchange such a well-structured metainformation for each Web page, the optimal transmission of Web pages would be possible. One possible implementation of this metainformation structuring is to extend HTML, for example, by appending such information to relevant HTML tags or even inserting specific comment blocks (of some clever marks) into HTML documents. The advantage and disadvantage of this approach are obvious: no separate description method is needed; but HTML specification needs to be extended, and existing Web pages to be rewritten (and of course, both the server and client need to be updated).

The other one, which we choose, is to define a separate, specific, XML-based language, with the sole purpose for efficient resource transmission, which should be a very simple markup language (as simple as possible). In the following we shall call this language the STML (short for Structured HTML), and a URI described in detail by STML an STML document.

STML documents follow the standard style of XML documents, consisting of a head-part (the <head> tag) and an optional body-part (<body>). Roughly speaking, an STML document is a "hypertext of hypertexts", that is, a set of hypertexts related to the same root hypertext. (The set may or may not be "closed" or complete with respect to the closure of object embedding.) An optimized batch-transmission model would thus be a protocol for the efficient transmission of such hypermedia sets. Here is an example of a simple STML document:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<stml xmlns="" />

<head> <root>

<object Name="/index.html" Content-Type="text/html" ETag= "0-54e-383712c4" Offset-Size= "239/15572" Embedded="-text/html, +*/*, local-only" />  </root>

<object Name= "../img/logo.jpg" Content-Type= "image/jpeg" Content-Encoding= "czip" ETag= "0-b7f-39e37ad2" Offset-Size="15627/10796" />

<link href="" />  </head>  <body>

<object Name= "/index.html">

  ...content (uncompressed)...


<object Name= "/logo.bmp">

  ...content (compressed)...

</object> </body> </stml>

3.    A Data Model for Batch-Transmission

Having designed a method to represent the structured metainformation of resources associated with a URI, we now try to establish a data model for solving the problem of efficient batch-transmission. The following figure depicts the model, which is an adaptation of Moguls model [3] to the batch-transmission situation. For individual resources, the data types and operation pipelines are the same, up to the entity phase, except that the various sets of data objects related to a root resource (URI) are tree structured and processed in a batch manner (operating on the tree structures). The only significant difference is at the message (transmission) phase, where in this model, entities related to a Web page are structured into an STML document before they go through the last operation phase (transfer encoding) and network transmission. The whole resource (instance) tree needs an independent global ETag, which is that would appear in a generated response message.

4.    Binding to HTTP

As an example of combining the above STML descriptions with the HTTP messages, here we discuss a binding scheme that is borrowed from the HTTP binding defined in SOAP/1.1 (but not SOAP/1.2, whose HTTP binding uses a Content-Type mechanism). We shall call the resulted extension the Structured HTTP, or STTP for short. (Of course, other binding schemes can also be possible but will not be discussed here.)

We use a special header, ATTP-Action, to do the binding. As an example:

GET /index.xxp HTTP/1.1


Content-Type = text/xml; charset="utf-8"

Content-Length: ###

STTP-Action: STML-Compare

If-None-Match: 0-85f-724334c4           // global ETag


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<stml xmlns="" />

<head> <root>

<object Name= "/index.xxp" Content-Type="text/html" Offset-Size= "502/27371" ETag= "0-54e-383712c4" Linked-Object="-text/html, +*/*">  </root>

<object Name="/logo.jpg" Content-Type="image/*" Offset-Size= "27960/66808" ETag= "0-23f-626854c4" />

<object Name= "/menu.js" Content-Type="text/*" Offset-Size="94920/8033" ETag="0-31d-652413c4" />

</head> </stml>


In principal, the STTP-Action can be used with various HTTP requests, assigning the uniform semantics that the client expects an STML response from the server. For example, the extended HTTP GET messages correspond to 3 kinds of STTP actions: STML-All, STML-Head and STML-Compare. There are three general rules for using STTP-Comparer requests: (1) a newly added object causes ETag changes of both <root> and the STML document; (2) if an <object> listed in the request is not actually related the current <root>, the server ignores it; (3) if the server did not add a required object into the STML description, the client will use the conventional HTTP GET to retrieve it.

The binding of HTTP response messages is relatively simple, namely the server directly return the requested STML description in the response body (as a usual entity). The HTTP status code is used in a way similar to the SAOP binding. The following is a response example:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

Content-Type = text/xml; charset="utf-8"

Content-Length: ###

STTP-Action: STML-All

ETag: 0-85f-724334c4      // ETag of the whole STML document


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<stml xmlns="" />

<head> ... </head>  <body> ... </body> </stml>

5.    An Optimized Batch-Transmission Model

Based on the above scheme, an optimized batch-transmission model can now be established in the form of two general rules:

(1)      In the first-time retrieval, the client first gets the STML description of the attempted URI by sending a description request, whose response is then used for selecting interesting contents from the resource set via a successive content request; To avoid the unnecessary successive request when the target resource has actually no interesting embedded objects (e.g., when the URI is a text file), the server may indicate so by adding the requested contents into the response to make a complete STML document.

(2)      In subsequent revalidate retrieval, the client only needs to send an STML-Compare action request, listing the meta-information of the interesting objects (including the page itself), such that the sever will have sufficient information for constructing an efficient response.

In transaction (1), when the URI is actually not a resource aggregation, the successive request is a risk of adding an extra cost.  Since this is assumed to be the first-time retrieval, it is up to the server to make a right decision to avoid the risk. One may further attempt to optimize transaction (1) by simply sending an STML-All request. The result will, of course, be correct, with a possible risk to re-transmit cached objects (e.g., images or style sheets). This further optimization can be useful only for rarely (re)visited Web sites, as the local cache can be assumed with a high probability to have been emptied. Note that in this model, the message numbers of the two STTP transactions are constants: (1) requires two rounds of interaction with 4 messages, and (2) need only one round of 2 messages. By contrast, for a typical Web page with 20 related objects, there are 21 requests and 21 responses (totally 42) between an HTTP client and server. Though request pipelining can help reduce network bandwidth use (in addition to causing other problems, though), as we see from our comparison experiments [1,2], the other stupid 40 revalidate messages may lead to considerable network latency and large packet numbers.

6.    Structured Caching and Other Issues

The data model also suggests a new way of organizing cache contents, namely, when a root (HTML) page is cached, the tree structure of metainformation of all its associated components and their cachability properties should also be stored together with it. This tree structure of cache (with STML descriptions) can be very useful for fast construction of STML-Compare requests in later revalidations. Using STML metainformation trees to structure cache contents also has a benefit in maintaining cache consistency. Compared to URI-based caching, tree-based caching can have a comprehensive knowledge of the interrelations among the entries (such as the invalidity relationships), and hence can performed and be controlled more efficiently. Actual cache trees of Web pages are highly coupled, and the whole cache would have a network structure. Under each URI there is a cache tree.

If STTP and other higher-level application protocols such as SAOP are bound to the same HTTP message, then an STTP server would consider the STTP binding first. This is because STTP is intended to be a more bottom mechanism for resource transmission. But carefully designed constraint rules have to be introduced into STTP in order to preserve SOAP compatibility and in particular, to avoid possible conflicts with the contents of SOAP message bodies. E.g., if SOAP is bound to an HTTP GET request, then all the request STTP actions (STML-All, STML-Head, STML-Compare) are applicable; both STML-All and STML-Head can be applied to any HTTP request messages.

Comparison of related work and some experiment results can be found in [1,2]. We found that STTP outperformed HTTP under all circumstances tested. The model may be regarded as near-optimal in that a batch transmission approach with comprehensive caching and partial updating support is actually possible for HTTP. STTP is still a relatively simple and effective mechanism, and fully compatible with HTTP. We would like to further investigate the consequences of this model, including both the benefits and costs, and possible impact on related aspects of the Internet.

The author thanks the beneficial discussions and generous help from his colleagues. This work is supported by the 863 Program under the project No. 2001AA112081.

7.    References

[1]      Swen, Bing. An Overview of the Web++ Framework. In Proc. of International Conferences on Info-tech & Info-net (ICII2001), Conference E (Information Network), E-13 (Web Technology). Beijing, Oct.29 - Nov.1, 2001.

[2]      Swen, Bing. A Brief Introduction of the Web++ Framework. In WWW2002 Conference Proceedings, Posters Session. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. 7-11 May 2002.

[3]      J. Mogul. Clarifying the Fundamentals of HTTP. WWW2002, May 7-11, 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.