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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:29:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4802975E.4030508@musc.edu>
To: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>



Michaeljohn Clement wrote:
> Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>   
>> Michaeljohn Clement wrote:
>>     
>>> Either the URI from which you get a 200 OK response
>>> identifies an information resource, in which case we can make
>>> statements about it, or it does not in which case we cannot any longer
>>> make statements about the page by using the URI.
>>>       
>> Then, you haven't get to the essence of what I tried to say. It does not
>> lose that capability.
>>     
>
> You are right.  My statement "we cannot any longer make statements 
> about the page by using the URI" was too strong.  However, we cannot 
> do so as easily.  If the URI does not unambiguously identify the Web 
> page, then we must go the extra step of creating something that does.
>
>   
>> First, whatever information resource is, 200
>> doesn't allow you to identify that resource unless you know it is a
>> byte-copy of that resource. 
>>     
>
> That assertion is essentially the negation of the httpRange-14 
> resolution.
>   
Exactly.  This is what I am trying to do.  :-).  The reason is that I 
don't know what is an information resource.

Let's me ask you this.  Is this 
http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/doc/web-arch/img/fig2 an IR?

Yes or no?

Now, I tell you, there are a few content-types behind that URI.  
text/html, image/jpg, text/plain, ...

Tell me what kind of statement you want to make on 
http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/doc/web-arch/img/fig2 *easily*?

Can you tell me what is the, let's say 10th byte, of 
http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/doc/web-arch/img/fig2?
> But you are wrong, there is no such thing as a byte-copy of an 
> information resource (in the AWWW sense).  Obviously a clear 
> definition of what an IR is has been hard to come by, but it is 
> not something of which one can take a byte-copy.  Any such thing 
> would be an awww:representation.
>   
I want to tell you is this.  If you want to do what you said *easily* 
describe a webpage, whatever it is.  The necessary condition is that URI 
has one and only one mime-type and whatever is on your browser is a 
byte-to-byte copy of that page.  Under all other conditions, can you do 
that *easily*. 

Sorry, Michael, I read your later email but I don't think you have a 
clear mind about what a URI, a web page on your own accord yet.  And 
when I tries to explain to you later, your position is switching around, 
which prevents you from making any sensible dialog.  Please, settle your 
own definitions first. 

Just to make this clear to you.  URI is simply a symbol denoting 
something.  Without getting a representation of it, you knows nothing 
about it.  This is clearly defined in URI spec.  That is the opacity of 
URI.  You should not infer anything from a symbol.  Obviously, no one 
prevents you from doing that but you should take your own responsibility 
but accusing others.

Second, to allow binding an HTML representation to a person does NOT 
mean NOT to allow binding an HTML representation to a web page. 

I think you should be able to take care of the rest ...

Xiaoshu
Received on Sunday, 13 April 2008 23:30:30 GMT

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