- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:25:26 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 6/13/11 6:52 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running it past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that a description of something is in any useful sense isomorphic to the thing it describes. As in, some RDF describing, say, the Eiffel tower is not in any way isomorphic to the actual tower. (I also do not understand why you think this claim matters, by the way.) > > Perhaps we are understanding the meaning of http-range-14 differently. My understanding of it is as follows: if an HTTP GET applied to a bare URI http:x returns a 200 response, then http:x is understood to refer to (to be a name for, to denote) the resource that emitted the response. No, 200 OK means this URI is functionally an Address i.e., a place that's ready to transmit the byte stream associated with the Address. > Hence, it follows that if a URI is intended to refer to something else, it has to emit a different response, and a 303 redirect is appropriate. When the functionality of the URI changes i.e., its a Name rather than an Address, courtesy of de-reference (indirection), there is a 303 redirect (an act of indirection). > It also follows that in the 200 case, the thing denoted has to be the kind of thing that can possibly emit an HTTP response, Yes, a data server indicates to a client that a given Address is functional i.e., I'll transmit you a byte stream from this place which I crafted for this specific purpose. > thereby excluding a whole lot of things, such as dogs, from being the referent in such cases. Yes, if the response is 200 OK since the URI is an Address. No if the response is a 303 since the URI is a Name. It still boils down to the URI abstraction which ingeniously caters for two vital data access by reference operations: Name (for de-reference and indirection) and Address (for Data Access). Kingsley > Pat > > > On Jun 12, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > >> On 13 June 2011 02:28, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> >>> Next point: there can indeed be correspondences between the syntactic structure of a description and the aspects of reality it describes. >> That is what I was calling isomorphism (which I still don't think was >> inaccurate). But ok, say there are correspondences instead. I would >> suggest that those correspondences are enough to allow the description >> to take the place of a representation under HTTP definitions. >> >>> But I don't think all this is really germane to the http-range-14 issue. The point there is, does the URI refer to something like a representation (information resource, website, document, RDF graph, whatever) or something which definitely canNOT be sent over a wire? >> I'm saying conceptually it doesn't matter if you can put it over the >> wire or not. >> >>>> But replace "a novel written by a dog" for "dog" in the above. Why >>>> should the concept of a document be fundamentally any different from >>>> the concept of a dog, hence representations of a document and >>>> representations of a dog? >>> I dont follow your point here. If you mean, a document is just as real as a dog, I agree. So? But if you mean, there is no basic difference between a document and a dog, I disagree. And so does my cat. >> Difference sure, but not necessarily relevant. >> >>>> Ok, you can squeeze something over the wire >>>> that represents "a novel written by a dog" but you (probably) can't >>>> squeeze a "dog" over, but that's just a limitation of the protocol. >>> So improved software engineering will enable us to teleport dogs over the internet? Come on, you don't actually believe this. >> It would save a lot of effort sometimes (walkies!) but all I'm >> suggesting is that if, hypothetically, you could teleport matter over >> the internet, all you'd be looking at as far as http-range-14 is >> concerned is another media type. Working back from there, and given >> correspondences as above, a descriptive document can be a valid >> representation of the identified resource even if it happens to be an >> actual thing, given that there isn't necessary any "one true" >> representation. We don't need the Information Resource distinction >> here (useful elsewhere maybe). >> >> Cheers, >> Danny. >> >> -- >> http://danny.ayers.name >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > > > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 08:25:50 UTC