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: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:03:08 +0000
To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C611CE6D8DAF@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Xiashou,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
> Sent: 11 April 2008 11:27
> To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Cc: Jonathan Rees; Phil Archer; Pat Hayes; Williams, Stuart
> (HP Labs, Bristol); www-tag@w3.org WG
> Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions
>
>
>
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > Xiaoshu Wang writes:

<snip/>

> The implied message of the httpRange-14 and the definition of IR is
> trying to find a way to say "message"="resource".

Aggghhhh.... we are back going around this loop again. No... how many time have you and I agreed already that the reference, even accessed, awww:resource and the awww:representation of it (a message manifest as part of an HTTP response) are distinct things... what you get back from a HTTP GET is *never* the awww:resource referenced in the corresponding HTTP GET. Countless time we have been round that loop and countless time I believe that we have agreed. Even in the defn of IR is AWWW what it is that is conveyed in the message is *of* the awww:resource and not the awww:resource itself.

A flaw in the IR definition that I am sympathetic to (and others have raised this elsewhere) that both its past and future 'states' are essential characteristics of the awww:resource ie. we can never say that two different URI refer to the same thing unless they are know to share both a past and a future over all time). And even acknowledging that flaw... I can wriggle a bit, enough to sleep at nights, because at the end of time I can look back and serialise the whole history of the information resource as a message - just not the message that would typically be thought of which it generally pertainant to just one instant.

>  But they are - in
> fact - two different entities.

Yes...we keep agreeing.

> One is on the client side and the other
> one on the server side.  No matter how close or similar they are (in
> terms of byte-copy), there are at last two DIFFERENT entities.  Content
> negotiation makes all proposed solution for "message=resource" to break
> down regardless how you want to limit the definition of IR.

No one, at least no-one that I know of, on the TAG, Pat..., no-one other than you is proposing "message=resource", and you seem to be doing it as a rhethorical device so that you can argue against it.

> The delivery of a message is SAFE, therefore, doesn't imply the content
> of message is safe (whatever it means).  They are two different issues.
> We should understand the nature of a  resource from what its content is
> telling us but NOT from *how* its content is delivered. Isn't this the
> founding principle of the web - the principle of orthogonal specification?
>
> Xiaoshu
>

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 13:07:40 GMT

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