W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2003

Re: httpRange-14

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:03:33 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030801170333.L6774@www.markbaker.ca>

Tim wrote;
> > you can't even distinguish between our comments and those of
> > Mark Baker.
> 
> In which case?
> Well, I have heard you and he share the belief that an HTTP URI without 
> a hash can identify a person.  I have not heard you go along with his 
> idea that he is both a person the web page are in fact the same thing.  

I don't believe I've ever claimed that.  I claimed that
http://www.markbaker.ca/ identified me, the person (as my FOAF
asserts[1]).  I've also claimed that http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html
identifies my web page, though I don't think I've mentioned that here.

What you might have heard me say was something about how it's impossible
to distinguish between me and my web page if the representations
returned from GET on those two URIs have been equivalent, because
its the representations that determine the "sameness".

Anyhow, this last exchange between you two has been particularly
enlightening for me with respect to identifying what appear to be two
major disconnects between you.  If you'll endulge me for a moment.

Disconnect #1; Documents/Web-pages.  Culprit; Roy.

As Tim mentioned, Roy does seem to be assuming that a timbl:web-page
is what is returned from GET, a bag-o-bits.  Tim has said several
times that it isn't, that's it's an abstraction, such as "a picture of
Dan's car" in the abstract, rather than some particular PNG of it.

Disconnect #2; Identifying timbl:web-pages.  Culprit; Tim.

Tim asked;
"In your alternative architecture, where does one get the explict 
information from - which allows one to refer to a web page by its URI 
without meaning bridge or a person?"

Roy has talked about this at least once on www-tag that I can
remember (but can't find, sigh), but also in a recent discussion between
the two of you, archived on www-archive.  He wrote;

 "In any case, saying that "http" identifies an information resource
  would not eliminate the indirection issue.  A document can talk about
  some other document just as easily as a car.  We eliminate the 
  indirection
  case by declaring that assertions that target a URI are assertions on
  the resource identified by that URI: state that is only reflected by the
  content of all its representation over all time.  The only way to make
  assertions about the information content returned by an action is to
  add qualifiers for method and time, since the architecture requires
  that those be orthogonal to the identifier."
  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jul/0007.html

Hopefully that helps.  Sorry for butting in, but I'm just itching to
see this resolved.

 [1] http://www.markbaker.ca/foaf.rdf

Mark
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 17:03:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:20 GMT