W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2001

Re: Namespaces wihtout "#" Was: Few CWM Bugs

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:46:48 -0800
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-archive+n3bugs@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20011125144648.A1399@waka.ebuilt.net>
> So, here goes with a new field name:-
> 
>    EntityType = "Entity-Type" ":" ( "Resource" | "Representation" )

Gag.

> If the header is added, then there can be no argument. If the header
> is not present, then we simply do not define what is meant. I'm sure
> that this will satisfy both points of view: for the
> representationalists (Roy, Aaron, DanBri) a response of "Entity-Type:
> Resource" means that the representation that is returned is also the
> resource being requested.

Not a chance in hell.  It is simply impossible to transfer a resource -- it
would be like trying to transfer the notion of love or brilliance or whatever.
You can only identify the notion or transfer representations of that notion.

There exist some resources that are very concrete in the sense that they
correspond to one and only one representation, in some cases for all time.
However, it is still only possible to transfer the representation and
some metadata about that representation. That was the original reason why
RDF was created -- so that metadata could clearly state the relationship
of the representation to the resource over a greater time-frame than the
instant at which the representation was retrieved.

This distinction between representation and resource is absolutely necessary
in order to reason about the Web and its relationships, and I think one of
the main reasons RDF is difficult to comprehend is because it fails to
make a clear distinction between the two.

What you are looking for is a header field that defines the relationship
between representation and resource in a manner that is simple to understand
and relatively standard.  You should be able to do that with a typed Link to
a standard resource that represents that relationship, and for which some
form of RDF could be a reasonable representation of that relationship.

....Roy
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2001 17:51:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:14 GMT