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

RE: Some comments on 27 June 2003 Web Arch WD

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:30:44 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC559@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

I hope so.  I leave the classification by methods 
in more knowledgeable hands.

It occurs to me that if a method returns an error, 
say 404, the representation is not on the web.  It might 
be on the server, but if it can't be retrieved, it 
isn't on the web.  Does that make sense?  

Paring identification and retrieval methods may 
narrow the definition but because the results are 
in some context, observable/provable, that should 
be acceptable.  It would be saying, perhaps, that 
identity alone is not enough to say 'something' 
is on the web.  The queasy feeling returns.

The obvious question:  can a resource be on the 
web if a representation is not?  Can that question 
be answered without dropping into the familiar 
rat hole?

len


From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]

That makes sense.

I want to identify which of the web's means of identification and retrieval
classify a resource as being on the web.  In particular, the difference
between POST and other methods.

> Unless the web is understood to be a system, an architecture
> makes very little sense or difference.  It shouldn't be that
> hard to state that a representation of a resource is 'on the web'
> if the web's means of identification and retrieval can be
> used and it can be observed that they successfully do retrieve
> the representation.  The property 'on the web' can only be proved
> by testing.  It can be defined in terms of the test.
>
> len
>
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 13:30:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:18 GMT