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

RE: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:03:10 +0000
To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C611CE63E2F4@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hello Xioshu,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
> Sent: 09 April 2008 13:45
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; Pat Hayes; Jonathan Rees; www-tag@w3.org
> WG; Phil Archer
> Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions

[snip]

> > Just a question about this document that you have in mind:
> >     How are you identifing it? [eg. by name, say in a filing system;
> > by bit/sequence of its serialisation...]
> Let me suggest to distinguish the meaning of "denote" and "identify".
> Hence, a URI is a name that *denotes* a resource.  But a *resource* (not
> URI) can be identified in many ways.  For instance, we can *logically*
> identify a resource by a set of logic assertions, or casually
> *identified* in natural languages, pictures, etc.

Yes... I understand that.

FWIW: I asked the question the way I asked it, with deliberate intent - and I'd like Alan to feel free to answer that question.

I'm wanting to understand Alan's conceptualisation of a document. When he inspects a document what makes it the same document as the very one that he inspected earlier (particular in view of his question, a Microsoft Word document).

> A URI can be bound with any transportation protocol to retrieve various
> representation that can be used to *identify* a resource.

Yes...

> Within the
> web, we can then say that a URI denotes a "resource"

Yes... and that is what we appear to do...

> but a particular
> HTTP GET of a URI *identifies* the resource's representation,

Yes....

> which is
> obviously in its electronic form.  But URI doesn't have to be bound with
> HTTP.

Yes...

> Our snail mail system might in the future use URI too.  But by
> snail mail GET of a URI would *identify* a different *representation* of
> the resource denoted by that URI.

Yes... but also depending on whether you regard a *representation* as a message/event or a bit sequence... in the former case the representation is necessarily different because it is a different event even thought it may 'transport' an identical bit sequence to an earlier message in the same or a different channel. (token/type).

>  But this time, it could be in print
> or in some other medium form.

Yes...

>
> I hope this might help.

I don't I've said anything, recently or previously, that would suggest that I disagree with any of the points you make above.

> Xiaoshu

Thanks,

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 13:07:19 GMT

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