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

Information resources

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:58:20 -0500
To: wangxiao@musc.edu, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <8C535F44-9143-4F5C-A123-D7629E6E715D@w3.org>
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, <www-tag@w3.org>, Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>


On 2007-11 -25, at 16:40, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:

>
>>> Of course, I am assuming,
>>>
>>> awww:InformationResource owl:disjointWith  
>>> awww:NonInformationResource.
>>
>> The AWWW does not talk about Non-information resources.
>> You would have to define it is you wanted to use it in conversation.
> Clearly, Pat is not an Information Resource.  AWWW doesn't not talk  
> about Pat. Neither about genes, molecule, cars, hard copy books,  
> etc., etc., how useful will the web be then?
>
> My point of view is: AWWW only delivers information in documents.  
> Any information about anything will do.
>>> Because if it is not true, i.e., there is something that can be  
>>> either IR or non-IR, then the definition of IR seems already  
>>> irrelevant (at least if we don't find another 30x code for that  
>>> mixed category with regard to httpRange-14).
>>>
>>> As everything in the web is a rdfs:Resource, either (1) or (2)  
>>> seems running into a paradox.  (I am not a logician.  If I am  
>>> wrong, please point it out for me.)
>>
>> 1 is false.
>> 2 is not defined in the awww.
> Will (2) ever be defined in the AWWW?

Non-information resource is your term.  You introduced it.  You  
haven't explained why you need it.
You haven't explained how it is part of the argument.


> If not, people must be better safe than sorry to front every  
> resource with a 303 because we can never be sure when and where his/ 
> her "document" will be judged as a FalseDocument.

Ah. I see.  Your argument is: Well, when I put something on the web, I  
must be careful to be sure whether it is an IR or not, as if it is an  
IR I can return 200 but if it is not I must return 303.  I mustn't do  
the wrong thing or I will get into trouble!

Try thinking of it this way instead.   You are going to serve some  
representation on the web, for this thing.
Are those going to be (a) ABOUT the thing, or (b) the CONTENT of this  
thing denoted by the URI? If the former, you must use # or 303. If the  
later, you can serve the representations with 200 from that URI.
You see, 200 means (basically)  "Here comes the content of the  
document you asked for"
and 303 means "Here is the URI of  document ABOUT the thing you asked  
for.

Example 1.    I serve a copy of Moby Dick, the book.  The URI   
<md.html>  that of the book, moby Dick. The server returns 200 and   
long HTML file with the CONTENTS of the book. When I have read that file

Example 2.   I don't have the book.  I have a library catalog card  
about it. I have a URI for the book Moby dick <card1234.rdf#md>.  Even  
though the book and the card are both documents, I am not serving up  
the CONTENT of the book, I am serving up the content of the library  
card, which is ABOUT the book.
	<card1234.rdf#md> 200s, giving the RDF for the catalog card.

	The card catalog card uses the URI <card1234.rdf#md> to talk about  
the book, and <card1234.rdf> to talk about itself.

Example 3.   I don't have the book.  I have a library catalog card  
about it. I have a URI for the book Moby dick <mb>.  Even though the  
book and the card are both documents, I am not serving up the COTENT  
of the book, I am serving up th content of the library card, which is  
ABOUT the book.
	<mb>  303s to <md.card>
	<md.card> 200s with the content of the card calog card about the book.

	The card catalog card uses the URI <mb> to talk about the book, and  
<mb.card> to talk about itself.

You see? The critical question is what the relation is between the  
bits you are going to ship and the thing identified.

When you answer the question, 'Am I going to ship out the information  
content of this' then  clearly you are never going to answer yes for  
things which are not documents.   But the crucial question is not  
primarily what sort of thing it is. The primary question is, what is  
the relationship between the representation and the thing?







>  Sure, hashing it everywhere *avoided* the question but it still  
> doesn't answer the question - what is "information resource", yes?



> Doesn't that mean that the web will work just fine without answering  
> the question of what is information resource?

Will my Volkswagen work fine without answering the question "What is  
an Engine?".
The VW manual tells the factory how to put together car.  The manual  
tells me how to drive a car.
I use it even though I don't have a com

The AWWW defines how information resources are looked up,. convey  
information abo things, and so on.
What are

> In other words, whether something is an information resource or not  
> doesn't really matter to the web, right?
>
> Then, why not simply changing our interpretation of the architecture  
> of the web and make everyone's life easier, hash or slash, does it  
> really matter at all?
>
> Xiaoshu

Tim

PS:
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 00:58:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:48 GMT