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

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

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:20:34 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADD3C@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <sandro@w3.org>, <algermissen@acm.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Sandro Hawke
> Sent: 17 October, 2004 22:43
> To: algermissen@acm.org
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"] 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Sandro Hawke:
> > 
> > > [...] Some of us think that an HTTP "200 OK"
> > > response on a GET or HEAD for some URI means it identifies an
> > > information resource, 
> > 
> > Hmm....and if, at a future point in time, the response will be
> > a 404? Does the resource cease to be an information resource?
> 
> No, the point is that since only an information resource can have a
> representation (as some of us view these things 


Well....

Feel free to "view" this matter however you like, for your *own* applications,
but many of us already have DEPLOYED, SUCCESSFUL applications which explicitly
exclude such a view, and therefore do not presume that such a view will be
easily, or ever, foisted upon the web community.

> -- I know this point
> is controvercial), 

It's not simply controversial, it's highly unrealistic, since you're not
going to get folks to abandon their existing, proven solutions just because
you prefer to see things modelled in a more restrictive manner -- which is
*proven* to have scalability and performance issues (being forced then to
mess with fragment identifiers and indirect access, etc.)!

I've challenged [1] those holding this view to prove that this approach
offers more utility and benefit, in actual practice, for real-world
applications, than the more general, agnostic view, and that challenge 
still stands.

This is not a matter of which model is more esthetically or conceptually
pleasing, but which one is better for deploying real-world applications.
We are not doing thought experiments here (or at least, most of us are not).
Demonstrate that your narrower view is better for a sufficiently broad
range of web applications, including (and particularly) those which are
already successfully deployed which adopt the more general, agnostic view.

Regards,

Patrick

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2004Oct/0093.html
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 09:20:50 UTC

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