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

Re: [httpRange-14] What is an Information Resource?

From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:46:20 +0100
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1197974780.2299.18.camel@daneel>

On tis, 2007-12-18 at 02:36 -0800, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >I can't for the world see how numbers and RDF graphs can fall into the
> >same category.
> They are both mathematical abstractions. An RDF 
> graph is defined to be a mathematical set: its 
> not a data structure or an expression.

Ok, let's accept that argument.

What harm would be done by returning 200 Ok with an RDF/XML
serialization of this set when asked?

For things like Jupiter, I can see a clear problem - the thing vs. a
description of the thing. It makes a difference which you are referring
to. There are a number of use cases that break when returning a HTML
document when asked for Jupiter.

But the RDF/XML is not *about* the RDF Graph in the same way, and I
can't seem to find any issue with returning 200. 

What is the use case that breaks? 

I've stated before that the IR discussion needs to be grounded in
use-cases, not theory. In other words, we need to *define* IRs in a way
that supports our use cases, not the other way around.




Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 10:46:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:54 UTC