W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2009

[Fwd: Re: Splitting vs. Interpreting]

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:42:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4A3AB4C7.50401@musc.edu>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>


attached mail follows:


Looks to me like you only sent this to me, though it appear to be 
written as if sent to the list.

You may want to try again.

Stuart
--
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
>   
>>>> Well... http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch is pretty clear in its one and  
>>>> only diagram that what is obtained from the web are  
>>>> awww:representation of a resource as opposed to the resource itself.  
>>>> I think that accords with your position.
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> I think possibly there may be a misunderstanding here about the  
>>> meaning of the phrase "obtained from". If I walk up to the Web, so to  
>>> speak, and throw a URI at it, then what I get back is (as Stuart says)  
>>> a representation of something.
>>>     
>>>       
>> So far so good...
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> But what I managed to make contact  
>>> with, and what sent me that representation, and which that  
>>> representation is a(n awww:)representation of, is supposed to be a  
>>> resource of some (special) kind. 
>>>     
>>>       
>> Still ok... 
>> "(special)" alluding to 'so-called' "information resource"? 
>>
>> And parenthetically because of controversy over 1) objective charactterisation of such a 'special' kind of resources and 2) whether robust characterisation is actually necssary or possible?
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> And Ive been reading Xaioshu as  meaning that that resource, whatever 
>>> it is, is what is "obtained from" the Web; in which case, his position 
>>> makes more sense (though I still  don't agree with it :-)
>>>     
>>>       
>> FWIW my reading of Xiaoshu's is that he complains that the TAG holds the position that it takes what is "obtained from" the web (aka. an awww:representation) as being *the* referenced resource, and that that is not a position that the TAG should hold - which is fortunate (maybe) because AFAIK it is not infact a position held by the TAG (or by TR/webarch).
>>   
>>     
> Stuart's reading of me is correct.  But I think Pat's has partial merit 
> too.  What Pat is trying to get is a  level of comfort to avoid falling 
> into the Decartian gap.   (I probably have skipped many of my reasoning 
> steps here). But if we just take the Web to as another *mean* of 
> obtaining information, then Pat has read me correctly too.  What we get 
> from the Web is no different from what we get from sight, sound, and 
> touch.  the Web is just another information system, but with a larger 
> scope and easier accessibility. 
>   
>> That the awww:representation obtained could be *a* resource is possible. However, the obtained representation is just not (usually, ever?) the resource being referred to in the original reference. 
>>   
>>     
> We could say that for a URI, its resource is somewhat equivalent (but 
> not *is*) to what the URI denotes.  But we have to define the 
> equivalence.  But this definition must be *explicit* and *objective* so 
> that it must be signaled somewhere.  The line of thought that I am 
> trying to refute is the thought that: there is an intrinsic equivalence 
> relation between a resource and its representation.  But, there is none.
>
> Xiaoshu 
>   
>> I'm still thinking about your book example... particularly 
>>
>> 	"This entity involved in the this transaction, here and now, is what you are asking 
>> 	about; it is the thing that the name you just used refers to".
>>
>> The physical book seems to serve as both message (awww:representation) and resource. The closest 'electronic' example I can get to is an immutable file/document that has a single invariant representation over its entire lifetime.
>>
>> FWIW: I think Xiaoshu, you, I and the TAG (at least the one I was part of) hold(held) very similar positions.
>>   
>>   
>>     
>>> Pat
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or 
>>> (650)494 3973
>>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>     
>>>       
>> Stuart
>> --
>>     
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 21:43:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT