W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:28:52 -0500
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A18D39CC-5E3B-4B7F-AD8C-EF99763F5476@ihmc.us>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>

On Jun 10, 2009, at 7:50 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:

> David,
>
> I think the point of Alan's question is not so much about whether  
> the file (and hence its representations) can be subject to change,  
> but about whether its is the file itself[*] that is the responding  
> entity or the thing (filing system) that acts as its container.

Right. But hasnt it been assumed since day one, ie somewhere around  
Roy's thesis, that The Resource is **the thing identified by the  
URI**, and that the stuff that gets sent (by the Resource, when you  
ping it suitably) is a Representation of it, ie of the Resource,  
rather than the Resource itself. So indeed, a bare text file is *not*  
a Resource in this sense, rather in the way that my cat cannot answer  
the telephone, even though you can hear it meowing when I answer the  
telephone. Resources have to be able to Do some Webbish things,  
participate in the Web architectural dance in some way. They are  
agents, not files.

Seems to me that several very smart people worked hard to get this  
broad architecture picture worked out, and that we should use it  
rather than ignore it.

Pat



>
> Stuart
> --
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org]
>> Sent: 10 June 2009 11:02
>> To: Alan Ruttenberg
>> Cc: Pat Hayes; Jonathan Rees; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com;
>> AWWSW TF; Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
>> Subject: Re: Are generic resources intentional?
>>
>> On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 22:45 +0100, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>>> Why not, "can emit a response to some kind of access
>> protocol"  ? That seems
>>>> to handle all the present and all the likely future
>> cases, be unambiguous,
>>>> and (by philosophical standards) vividly clear and
>> unambiguous. And it has
>>>> the great merit of talking about the **actual resource**
>> rather than an
>>>> awww:representation of it, which (latter) is what gets
>> conveyed in messages,
>>>> in fact.
>>>
>>> What does  "can emit a response to some kind of access
>> protocol"  the answer to?
>>> Notably, it doesn't include things like text files with
>> html in them.
>>
>> Sure it can.  If you think of these things as functions from time and
>> requests to representations then its representations still may change
>> over time (as the file is modified) even if at any given time
>> it always
>> emits the same representation regardless of the request.  Or, if you
>> take Roy's "curried" view (see
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Apr/0047.html )
>> of these things being functions from time to representation sets,  
>> then
>> even if the representation set is a singleton set at a given time it
>> still may be a different singleton set at another time, when
>> the file is
>> modified.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
>>
>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not
>> necessarily
>> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
>>
>>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 13:30:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 13:30:11 GMT