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

RE: Towards a position of neutrality on issue httpRange-14 for AWWW (was RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource"))

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:35:44 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADD5E@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <skw@hp.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Stuart Williams
> ...
> 
> Patrick offer an alternate suggestion in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Oct/0144.html
> 
> >How about
> >
> >   "When a representation of one resource contains a reference to
> >    another resource with a URI, this constitutes a link between
> >    the two resources".
> >
> >???
> >
> Which has the interesting effect of at least concpetually 
> 'integrating' 
> over all the available representation... and 'promotes' 
> references found 
> in representations to being references between resources.
> 
> I think that you're asking "Can a representation make a reference 
> without it entailing a link between the represented resource and 
> whatever the link refers to?"

I think the answer to that question has to be no, in
that the link in the representation is expressing the
relationship between the two resources and that relationship
is percieved in terms of the link, not in terms of the
inherent character or substance of either resource.

In the case of information resources, it may very well be
the case that the fundamental substance of that resource
includes a reference to another resource -- but as such a
reference would have to be realized as a link in some
representation in order for it to express a web relationship
between that and another resource, how could you ever tell
whether the link was an inherent part of the referring 
information resource itself, or merely part of the representation
of that resource, added by the creator of the representation
rather than the creator of the information resource? It's pretty 
slippery.

Ideally, we'd have some RDF available which would unambigously
state that the one information resource actually refers to the 
other resource, as part of its fundamental substance; but
again, one simply cannot determine the complete and true nature 
of the resource solely from its representation(s).

Insofar as the web architecture is concerned, it seems to me that
we need not speak  about whether one resource is actually referring to 
the other. It might. It might not. And even if it does, it is likely 
impossible to tell based on the representation itself. What truly counts 
is that, because the representation contains the link, a *web*
relationship between the two resources can be deemed to exist, in terms 
of that link.

It may be that the only actual relationship between any two
resources is a web relationship expressed by some link in
the representation of one of those resources. But it's
the web relations (not other kinds of relations) that matter
for the web machinery. Who/what is actually doing the referring is
not central to making the web work. 

Eh?

Patrick
Received on Monday, 25 October 2004 09:39:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:01 UTC