- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:37:22 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Jonathan A Rees <jar@mumble.net>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> The point that I want to stress is: from a particular representation, >> you can only know *a part* of what the URI identifies and we cannot >> tell how big the part is from its URI or its network response code. >> This, in my opinion, makes the distinction between IR and non-IR >> pointless. > > The point is that it partitions resources into two kinds: > message-conveyable resources, and other resources. And it establishes > an axiom, that a 200 response means we have a message-conveyable > resource. Define conveyable? We have to understand, HTTP protocol, in essence, is just a service. In other words, you ask a server a question, it responds to you in certain way. Even if the server tells you that it knows nothing about the resource you asked, it is still a message, isn't it? Whether something is message-conveyable in a system is arbitrary. > Without this axiom, it is not clear wether the URI of my homepage > identifies just a document, or wether it can be also used to identify > a person. This uncertainty exists for almost every web page. The axiom > removes any doubt: The answer is 200, therefore the URI identifies > something message-conveyable, therefore it cannot be a person, > therefore it must identify just the document. Nope, there is always something that is un-identifiable unless you are saying the bit-stream flying on the wire *is* your homepage (see my discussion with Stuart), then let me ask you how do you distinguish the flying bit-stream from your homepage? Regards, Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 17:38:41 UTC