W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:07:24 +0100
Message-ID: <417387CC.8030702@hp.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, www-tag@w3.org

Mark Baker wrote:

>On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:27:35AM -0400, Harry Halpin wrote:
>  
>
>>If you have my medical record and take it from a piece of
>>paper and put in into some database, then general an XML file from that 
>>database that flies across the Web, that XML file is *my medical record*
>>in the same sense that the original paper version is and not *a 
>>representation of my medical record*. In fact, the word *representation
>>of my medical record* doesn't even make much sense, does it?  
>>    
>>
>
>I believe it does.  If you subsequently (to the above taking place) paid
>a visit to your doctor and she wrote a note in your record, the XML
>document wouldn't be updated.  This is because the data crossed a trust
>boundary when it was translated into XML, just as it would if you made a
>photocopy of it.  Therefore it's not your medical record, but just a
>representation of it at some point in time.
>
>Consider that if I'm provided two URIs, one which identifies "an XML
>representation of my medical record at time T" (where T is fixed) and
>the other which identifies "an XML representation of my current medical
>record", then if I invoke GET on each at time T, I get two equivalent
>representations back.
>
>I suggest that what makes those two resources different is an "essential
>characteristic", and because it isn't reflected in the messages,
>

Small point... but that would depend on whether you regarded the request 
URI (or URI returned in header fields) part of any of the messages 
exchanged.

> then,
>depending how you look at it, either neither of those resources are
>"information resources", or just one of them is (take your pick).  But
>both cannot be.
>
>I continue to maintain that "information resource" is a pointless
>concept.
>
>Hmm, I bet there's a far shorter way of saying all that, like in a
>sentence or two, but it's not coming to me.  Sorry.
>
>Mark.
>  
>
Stuart
--
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 09:07:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:43 UTC