W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > October 2007

Re: RFC 2616 vs. AWWW

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:23:38 +0100
Message-ID: <470F593A.8090602@musc.edu>
To: Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Jonathan,
> The httpRange-14 resolution [1] is about identification (of a thing
> by/to an http server), not reference. 
"httpRange-14" is an *engineer* but not a *philosophical/ontological* 
solution because a server response code such as 200/303/404 etc. do not 
tell you more about what you already know or don't know about the URI.  
For instance, if I 303 redirect your potato URI to an RDF document, 
where I am talking about anything but your potato.  Would I be wrong?  I 
don't think so because I might be such a bad/excellent philosopher who 
happens to think everything is related.

HTTP specs is an engineer protocol, it instructs how client/server 
suppose to communicate. But HTTP spec does not govern the meaning of the 
returned resource/thing.  AWWW just happens to ride on top of it and 
give it some interpretation.  HttpRange-14 is *not* about identification 
but is a solution to relate and disambiguite two closely related 
things.  There is nothing wrong if one URI is used to identify both me 
and my RDF representation.  It just makes it difficult to talk about the 
RDF-less me and the me-less RDF. 

Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 11:24:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:50 GMT