W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > November 2008

RE: statements about resources vs. representations

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:52:52 +0000
To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD2B872281385A439B98164F5351E6DD39C3A9B158@GVW1144EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>

> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Pat Hayes writes:
> > I think what Harry should have said is that they are too
> > ephemeral for someone to want to give them an enduring name or
> > identifier. But there are other ways to refer to things than
> > baptizing them with a URI for all time.
> On this I don't think I agree.  We're talking about the Web here, and
> what's more, I think a representation is an information
> resource.

Please, no!  Certainly an awww:Representation can be a resource, but to say that it can be an InformationResource just needlessly muddies the water about what is an InformationResource.  If one accepts the idea that an IR is essentially a function from (Time x Request) to Representation, then the whole issue becomes much clearer: a Representation *cannot* be a an IR, because an IR is a function.  However, a Representation could be an *encoding* of an IR, just as a particular Java program can be an encoding of a particular algorithm.

> I mean,
> not only can the thing be represented as a computer message, the whole
> point of it is to be sent in a computer message!

We all know that the current definition of IR in the AWWW is hopelessly wrong, so I don't think it's helpful to appeal to that definition as a discriminator.

> The key architectural
> imperative for the Web is "Identify with URIs."  I see no
> reason why, in
> cases where you do want some means of identifying a particular
> representation, a URI wouldn't be the way to do it.

I agree.  However, it cannot return a 200 response, because 200 responders are IRs.

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
Received on Saturday, 22 November 2008 01:54:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:06 UTC