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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:30:47 +0100
Message-ID: <48009D67.8060705@musc.edu>
To: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>



Stuart Williams wrote:
>
> Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>  
>>> At 1:29 AM +0100 4/12/08, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>>>    
>>>> <snip>
>>>>      
>>>>>> Question 4: Is an HTTP-URI =  HTTP+URI?
>>>>>>           
>>>>> I have no idea what this means.
>>>>>         
>>>> What I mean is this:
>>>> HTTP-URI is simply an HTTP URI.
>>>> HTTP+URI is when the HTTP URI is bound to the HTTP transportation
>>>> protocol.
>>>> Hence, the question can be rephrased as such:
>>>> Is what a URI denotes the same thing as what the URI is dereferenced?
>>>>       
>>> Sometimes but also sometimes not. http-range-14 says that when the
>>> response code is 200, the answer is yes. As I say, I don't like this
>>> much either; but I can't see any feasible other way to answer the
>>> question/ at all/ for a given URI.
>>>
>>> I take it that your answer would also be: maybe, maybe not; but that
>>> you would want the decision to depend not on an http code, but instead
>>> on some RDF assertions which would be accessible from the URI (in a
>>> way I confess to not following yet, but ...) Is that right?
>>>     
>> Yes.  That is my point.  But I am not stubborn and unwilling to accept
>> any other model. It is because I don't see other models that can give me
>> a clear and objective way to answer the four questions that I asked.
>>
>> I think TAG's httpRange-14 is the following logic.
>>
>> Representation=Resource if HTTP=200.
>>   
> I'll just repeat here what I have said previously to you offline...
>
> That is NOT the TAG's position.
>> But Conneg breaks either the "equal" sign or the if clause.
>>   
> I also believe that you continue to be confused about how Conneg is 
> intended to be used.

Yes or no.

 From the articulation by Pat for my viewpoint here, 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0139.html,
my understanding of Conneg is different from what the Conneg that was 
intended.

But whether I am confused or not depends on the precise definitions of 
resource, representation and precise specification of their 
relationships.  I can say that I am confused w.r.t. the lack of a 
precise definition of current specifications.  Or I can say, I am not 
confused w.r.t. my understanding of Conneg.  Is that fair?

Xiaoshu

Xiaoshu
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 11:31:36 GMT

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