- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:55:46 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 14:40 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > >If the IETF says http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt identifies > >a piece of text, and not a function from time to data, that's > >not just a statement of policy; we have delegated to them the > >right to say what the resource _is_. And I don't think they're > >contradicting any established norms when they say that it > >identifies one piece of text. > > Seems to me that in cases like this we can just agree to identify a > piece of text with any *constant* function from some domain to that > piece of text, particularly if the only access anyone can have to the > function is to call it and get the value of it, i.e. the text, > delivered as a result. We could, yes, I suppose. But I don't think you can attribute even that position to the TAG based on what the TAG has written. > Even mathematicians routinely identify > constant functions with their values. So whether a web page is > 'really' a text or is 'really' a constant function from the set of > times (or whatever) to that text seems to me something we can just > agree to disagree about, without it mattering. Quite; the difference isn't observable in any way that I can think of, let alone any way that the TAG or the IETF or W3C has said anything about. > In fact, even the > publisher of the text and the reader of the text might disagree about > this, without it mattering to either of them. > > (I think Im agreeing with you here, Dan, right?) Yes, I think so. > >> 5. I haven't a clue what utility there would be in calling something an > > > "information resource" if that thing is never ever intended to return > >> some data in a 2xx response to an HTTP GET. > >> > >> Therefore, by Occam's Razor I conclude: > >> > >> All "information resources" are functions from time to data. > > > >Occam's Razor isn't a valid logical inference. It's sometimes appealing, > >but never compelling. In this case, I don't find it even appealing. > > Well, but if I'm right, above, then rather than argue with that > position, you should quietly roll your eyes and carry on. Because > *anything* can be seen as a constant function from some domain to it. Yes, I suppose so. > In some ontologies for time and action, you and I are functions from > times to people. I'm OK with that, myself, provided none of my salary > goes astray. [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 21:57:47 UTC