W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: reference needed - w3.org versioned documents

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:12:57 -0400
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.co
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFB541265E.F75FE9AC-ON85257420.00798E49-85257420.0079DE4B@lotus.com>

Ashok Malhotra writes:

> Are you saying that every non-information resource (thing) has 
> a single representation?
> My guess would be several representations.

No, but I'm noting that generic resources tend to have multiple 
representations at a given point in time.  For example, the same press 
release might be available in Greek, French, Chinese, and Japanese.  While 
I suppose you could try to make the case that it's a rapidly varying 
resource that changes it's stripes momentarily according the request it 
receives, I find it easier to consider such a resource as having a state 
that's the union of it's various natural language translations.  Like that 
non-information resource, it has many representations, and each one is 
only a partial view into the entire collection (of course, the generic 
resource is different in that all the translations are in some sense of 
some common, underlying abstract document -- to me it's more natural to 
consider them as a collection, but I understand that others prefer to view 
the translations as just being like different character encodings, 
something close to uninteresting plumbing that's needed to make the 
abstract resource readable by one audience or another.)

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
04/03/2008 05:46 PM
Please respond to ashok.malhotra
 
        To:     "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: reference needed - w3.org versioned documents



Hi Noah:
You said ...

If the resource is a non-information resource then the "representation" 
(and I understand some would prefer a different term for this case) is 
necessarily more partial and indirect.  E.g., if I am the resource, the 
representation might be a picture of me, etc.

Are you saying that every non-information resource (thing) has a single 
representation?
My guess would be several representations.

At a minimum there would be the representation and some metadata.  But 
perhaps
you don't consider metadata as a representation.

Ashok


noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>Joanthan Rees writes:
>
> 
>
>>Just the opposite. I'm saying the URI "owner" can and should make 
>>useful statements about the named resource, but generally doesn't, 
>>and without these useful statements *I* can't make useful statements 
>>about what's named because I don't know what's named. I can do as 
>>many GETs as I like, and I still won't know anything. The W3C's 
>>statements about its TR URIs qualify as useful statements, but for 
>>the undated URI I don't think they go far enough to let the the URI 
>>be a good citizen of the semantic web.
>> 
>>
>
>Let's accept what you say above as true.  In that case do you believe 
>there is there significant value in sticking to the TAG's position on 
>httpRange14?  You're making the case that even with the existing 
>restriction that status code 200 is only for "information resources", a 
>typical Semantic Web application will still pretty much be depending for 
>success on the URI owner publishing further information about the 
>resource.  If that's the case, then why the fuss about 200?  If the owner 

>has to publish more information anyway, then why overload 200?  Why not 
>rely on that additional information to disambiguate things like info vs. 
>non-info resources.  In particular, why don't we allow 200 for pretty 
much 
>any resource, with the understanding that: 
>
>* If the resource is represented using only one media type, and if the 
>state of the resource is time invariant, then the representation you get 
>with 200 should be pretty much the whole state of the resource.
>
>* If the resource is time varying but otherwise as above, then the 
>representation should be of its "current" state.
>
>* If the resource is generic, for example, a press release available in 
>French, Greek, English and Chinese, then the representation will 
typically 
>be partial (as I prefer to view it), in the sense that it is giving you 
>only one of the known translations.
>
>* If the resource is a non-information resource then the "representation" 

>(and I understand some would prefer a different term for this case) is 
>necessarily more partial and indirect.  E.g., if I am the resource, the 
>representation might be a picture of me, etc.
>
>You would, of course, not be able to tell which case you were dealing 
with 
>unless the URI owner published additional information.  Is there then 
>confusion in case 4 about statements made about "me" vs. statements made 
>about the "picture of me"?  Well, you've already said that if the 
resource 
>itself were the picture, we wouldn't know that it was unless the URI 
owner 
>published additional information.  That being the case, why don't use 
that 
>same answer here:  the owner of the URI should publish information saying 

>"this resource is a picture (and therefore, BTW, an information 
resource)" 
>or "this resource is a person, and the representations you're getting are 

>in general pictures of the person".
>
>Now, if the statement you made above is in fact not true, then I can see 
>why the httpRange decision has value.  Then it might be the case that by 
>merely publishing with 200 the resource owner has given you the 
>information necessary for it to usefully participate in the Semantic Web, 

>and that's valuable.  Since you've pretty much asserted that's not the 
>case, then is there still value in the 200 rule?  Thank you.
>
>Noah
>
>--------------------------------------
>Noah Mendelsohn 
>IBM Corporation
>One Rogers Street
>Cambridge, MA 02142
>1-617-693-4036
>--------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>


-- 
All the best, Ashok
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 22:13:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:55 GMT