- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:35:02 -0700
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- CC: ashok.malhotra@oracle.co, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Right! So, we agree that resources can have multiple representations. If the resource were a horse, you may have a picture of the horse, a text description of the horse, etc. It would be useful to provide a method to find all representations (or representation types) of a resource. Then, some form of (extended) content negotiation could be used to get at a particular representation. Ashok noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: >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 22:36:39 UTC