W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > February 2011

Re: true/false?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:17:45 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6AE9A9.7040109@webr3.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Okay, think I've figured out the difference in understanding. (cc: awwsw tf)

.. in-line below:

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Nathan wrote:
> 
>> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Feb 26, 2011, at 2:19 AM, Nathan wrote:
>>>> an HTTP resource can only be a thing which can have the HTTP interface as one of its properties. - agree?
>>> Any thing can be a resource.  An "HTTP resource" could be construed in many different ways, some as self-definitional (it speaks HTTP) and others as name-associated (it has an http URI).  Naming a resource as "http://example.com/blah" does not imply that there exists an HTTP interface at example.com, nor does it imply that accessing such an interface via HTTP will provide a usable result, though we typically only call things resources when they do provide a useful service/supply.  *shrug*
>> yup, it's those "speaks HTTP" / dereferencable ones I'm concerned with, not the anything which has a name in the form a uri (http scheme or other)
>>
>> context, a snipped conversation (which in some ways can be a seen as a continuation of your convo's w/ timbl, danc, sandro, timbray back around 2003):
>>
>> me: if you GET <u> and receive a "resource representation" (http-bis) with a status of 200 OK, then <u> must refer to a resource which has a state (even if that state is just existence), and the HTTP Interface is a property of that resource, therefore the class of all HTTP resources must be the class of all things which exist and have the HTTP Interface as a property - we can say everything else is hidden by the interface, but the aforementioned still remains true, does it not?
>>
>> jar: ... not at all clear to me, and this seems to contradict TimBL's view that Moby Dick the novel is an information resource ...
>>
>> me: Moby Dick the book/novel has been digitized/webized and one of it's many  properties is that a webresentation of it can be accessed via HTTP; one  way of looking at it is to imagine that every single copy of moby dick has been removed from existence, all that is apart from this one http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/moby/ does moby dick the novel still exist such that all it's vital properties remain? yes. The same can be true for a particular photo, a video, the declaration of independence, a book about moby dick the novel - and similarly this is a property which another set of things does not have, for example me, you, a toucan and Dan's car.
>>
>> /end-snip
>>
>> I'm way in deep on this one and have read+studied in depth virtually every reference on the subjects (related specs, convos, theories, summaries, meeting notes, discussed in full and depth w/ everybody involved bar yourself, although I have studied and agree with virtually everything you've written) - this is pre-empting another round of work and a consensus doc / rec coming in the future via the tag, and also text needs written in specs and recs moving forward around sem web related techs, linked data and other things - I sit at the intersection of the Semantic Web, WebArch, HTML, WebApps, REST/HTTP, JS, Auth/Security and Web Development communities and as a member of various working group, task forces, and author/editor of related specs - so need to have a clear understandable story on this pita topic.
> 
> The clear understandable story is that resources are a continuum over
> time with myriad potential meanings depending on one's perspective.

We can see any URI (name) as referring to anything, and it seems here 
you think of all URIs as referring to Aristotelian abstractions.

However, my contention is, that if you can GET a resource representation 
of the thing being referred to, then the representation must be a full 
instance (copy, particular) of that thing in it's current state. Such 
that it, the thing can potentially be transferred (as in moved) over 
HTTP. Note, this is only for resources with an http uri for which you 
can GET a resource representation.

a fair distinction to make / make sense?

cheers, nathan.

> The Semantic Web, meanwhile, was created with no capability to express
> time, perspective, or change -- it is like trying to model life with
> nothing more than a few still pictures.
Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 00:18:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 February 2011 00:18:29 GMT