Re: Issue-57

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com<mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com>>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:09:53 -0400
To: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org<mailto:xiao@renci.org>>
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org<mailto:david@dbooth.org>>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org<mailto:jar@creativecommons.org>>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com<mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com>>, "www-tag@w3.org<mailto:www-tag@w3.org> List" <www-tag@w3.org<mailto:www-tag@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Issue-57



On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org<mailto:xiao@renci.org>> wrote:
I think there is one thing that we all should agree. That is: neither side
is going to convince or accept the other side.

There are several issues being discussed. Are you saying that in none of the cases will one side convince or accept the other side? Do you assert that we can not have a resolution of these issues without both sides agreeing?

As far as I can tell, there is only one issue. The definition of IR and the treatment of it. All other issues come back to it.


But the thing is: these two views are not mutually exclusive. One view
actually subsumes the other. Those view/practice of not caring for
IR/httpRange-14 does not exclude those who insist on IR/httpRange-14. The
latter community can, in fact, grow out of a world built upon the former
viewpoint. They can develop an ontology of IR and assert their dataset
with this ontology, and their use of URI will adhere to httpRange-14.

What is the alternative of http-range14 you are suggesting? What does "not caring" mean, please? For your reference, here is the resolution:

The alternative is to ignore httpRange-14. The 'not caring' means: I don't care if there is such thing called 'information resource' or not and I don't care how people find a way to make it distinguishable (I.e., via 303). But "don't care" does not mean "object". For instance, I am an atheist, but I don't consider those who believes in God/Budda/etc., are wrong. They can do whatever worships they would like to do and I respect it. But on the other hand, I don't want them to force me to worship.

This is why the "resolution" that you referred is seriously wrong. It forces me, along with many others, to honor some metaphysical categorization that no one in the world can objectively define.

<TAG type="RESOLVED">

That we provide advice to the community that they may mint
"http" URIs for any resource provided that they follow this
simple rule for the sake of removing ambiguity:

   a) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
      2xx response, then the resource identified by that URI
      is an information resource;

   b) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
      303 (See Other) response, then the resource identified
      by that URI could be any resource;

   c) If an "http" resource responds to a GET request with a
      4xx (error) response, then the nature of the resource
      is unknown.

</TAG>

Please specify which part you are referring to.

But the inverse cannot be held. The view of latter group entails a smaller
universe. A web architecture based on the latter view will label the
former's statement as "false", their authors "irresponsible", and their
resources "illegal".

Of the three terms mentioned, I see only the term "irresponsible" and it has been used by David, who I'm guessing you consider to be of the later view.

These are specifications and one hopes that one can arrive at determinations of these sorts, whether or not anyone likes it.

The question that TAG should answer, in fact, is not which viewpoint is
right. (We know there would not be answer to it.) Rather, it should be:
should we design the web architecture be in such that it fosters
diversity or in such that it suits to someone's preference?

The TAG should figure out what the architecture is supposed to accomplish and propose constituents of the architecture that let it do so.

What is it suppose to accomplish then? I think it has been around five years since the httpRange-14? Can TAG shows us how many has followed httpRange-14 and what, if any, have we gained from that?


Casting the issue as a matter of accepting diversity is as appropriate here as it would be in a discussion of the format of TCP headers. If there isn't agreement about which bytes specify the source port versus destination port the damned thing won't work and the same thing is true here.

No, it is not the same as the format issue. Promoting XML, for instance, does not prevent the development and the thriving of other formats, such as YAML/JSON etc. The httpRange-14 is an entirely different beast. As I have argued a long time ago, httpRange-14 forces me to answer a metaphysical question that I cannot answer before I can put a thing on the web.

Xiaoshu Wang