W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2007

RE: New Editors Draft of the httpRange-14 Finding

From: Rhys Lewis <rhys@volantis.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)'" <dbooth@hp.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002f01c7eb9b$d93cfee0$0202fea9@volantisuk>

Thanks David, that's very helpful for me.

Best wishes
Rhys 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) [mailto:dbooth@hp.com] 
> Sent: 30 August 2007 18:51
> To: Rhys Lewis; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: New Editors Draft of the httpRange-14 Finding
> 
> Hi Rhys,
> 
> Yes, I intentionally avoided proposing any definition of 
> information resource in that review, because I didn't want 
> that thread to turn into a debate about the proper definition.  
> 
> The main problem with the current definition[1] is that it 
> only addresses static IRs.  The current definition says that 
> "their essential characteristics can be conveyed in a message"[1].  
> But consider a web page that reports the current weather in 
> Oaxaca.  The essence of any *particular* weather report can 
> be transmitted in a message, but it is not possible to 
> capture, in a message, the essence of the current weather 
> report in general.
> 
> A second problem is that the definition is unclear.  People 
> are left guessing whether a particular resource qualifies as 
> an IR or not.
> 
> Here are a few suggested definitions of information resource (IR):
> 
>  1. a source of representations
>  1a. a network source of representations  1b. a Web source of 
> representations
> 
>  2. a function from time and requests to representations 
> 
>  3. a network source/sink of representations/requests
> 
> All of these assume that there is a suitable WebArch 
> definintion of "representation".
> 
> All in all, I think either #1 or #2 would be best for the 
> WebArch document -- probably #1 (or one of its variants, #1a 
> or #1b) because it is simpler and less intimidating, though 
> #2 is more precise.  Maybe the best choice would be #1 as the 
> basic definition, and #2 in accompanying explanation.  One 
> negative about #1 is the fact that it would not obviously 
> cover an IR like a web page for submitting anonymous crime 
> tips, in which the main purpose of such an IR is to *consume* 
> information -- not produce representations.  But that is a 
> corner case and I think accompanying prose could explain that 
> such a page is still an IR.
> 
> To explain why I also included #3 in this list, consider the question:
> Why is it important for the WebArch to distinguish between 
> IRs and non-IRs?  (I recognize that there are some who 
> believe that such a distinction is not necessary, but for the 
> purpose of this discussion let's assume that it is.)  Why 
> doesn't the WebArch distinguish between mammal resources and 
> non-mammal resources?  I think the reason is that the WebArch 
> talks about the Web, requests and representations, and thus 
> it is relevant to distinguish between resources that are "on 
> the Web" -- that can accept requests and produce 
> representations -- and other resources.  In other words, I 
> think a key characteristic of an IR is the fact that it is 
> (potentially) network-accessible.  That's what really makes 
> it relevant to Web architecture.
> 
> 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> HP Software
> +1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
> http://www.hp.com/go/software
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not 
> represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
> > Of Rhys Lewis
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:36 AM
> > To: www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: New Editors Draft of the httpRange-14 Finding
> > 
> > Hello David,
> >  
> > I'm working through the comments we've received on this draft.
> >  
> > One of your comments relates to the definition of 
> Information Resource 
> > in AWWW [1]. You've made it clear that you disagree with 
> the existing 
> > definition, but didn't explain why in your mail. I appreciate that 
> > this is probably a long held view for you and I apologise for not 
> > being aware of the history.
> >  
> > It would help me greatly if you could point to a definition 
> that you 
> > feel is appropriate or a description of what you feel is 
> incorrect in 
> > the current definition in AWWW.
> >  
> > Best wishes, and thanks again for taking the time to 
> provide comments
> >  
> > Rhys
> >  
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-information-resource
> > 
> 
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 06:52:42 GMT

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