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

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:56:25 -0500
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AB8695A7-6135-4199-BC03-9F9F3C5BEA5A@ihmc.us>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
OK, point taken.

On May 29, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> My, er, intent was that this is a necessary, not sufficient,  
>> condition. I
>> don't think we need a sufficient condition for anything on the Web  
>> that
>> can't be stated in terms of XXTP responses and codes.
> That's fine, but then "on the web" becomes a necessary condition.
> The current exercise is to reverse engineer "generic resource" as  
> described
> by Tim,

See, this is the problem with jumping into an ongoing discussion  
without reading *everything* that has already been said. Sorry.

> and it clearly includes things that are not "on the web".
> At various points I have had your "accessible" in my pictures, because
> it's a pretty clear idea, but it is just a different kind of entity,
> as far as I can tell.
> To be accessible is to be a physical thing, and a generic-resource
> isn't

Agreed, you can't access Moby Dick or The Bible. I wonder, therefore,  
why we are even talking about such things here? They seem to have no  
place in Web architecture at all (though they can, of course, be  
referred to.) Maybe it would be useful to ask, why do we need to talk  
about them? Suppose (a useful mental exercise, I often find) that  
these things, whatever they are, simply vanished, in a kind of  
conceptual Rapture, and we all had to get along without knowing about  
them. What would actually change, in that case? So, for example, all  
the actual printed or electronic versions of Moby DIck would still be  
around, its just that there would be a Moby Dick for them to be  
versions of.  Readers wouldn't be bothered, I guess, but librarians  
would be, and booksellers might be as well. Anyone who keeps catalogs,  
in fact. So, maybe thats where the concept has most 'bite' in the real  
world, when cataloguing things. Is that way of thinking any help?

> (again,
> as far as I can tell - it's all so mushy I still haven't found a place
> to stand).

I know that feeling.


> They're much more like colors or contracts than they are like disk  
> drives.
> Jonathan

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 Friday, 29 May 2009 17:57:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:07 UTC