W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Issue-57

From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:01:53 +0000
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA29644A.1117E%xiao@renci.org>
Kinsley:

You have only stated there are address/names. But it is no different from
httpRange-14 because

When a URI is an Address in your terminology, it means that the URI
references a IR in httpRange-14.

This descriptive difference is not import. What is important is this:

Can I give a Person an Address in the Web? I think so. TAG thinks not.

Or do you think everything can have an address in the Web, or just some of
them?    

Xiaoshu

On 6/23/11 5:41 PM, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

>On 6/23/11 4:08 PM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>> The original purpose of httpRange-14, I guess, is to avoid ambiguity.
>>But
>> ambiguity can only be cleared with more ontological assertions.
>> httpRange-14 has raised more confusion/debate. Except transferring
>> ambiguity to a different term, what problem it has solved?
>Let me try:
>
>Ambiguity sources:
>
>1. eradication of URL from lexicon such that we only speak of URIs since
>a URL is subClassOf URI
>2. use of HTTP URIs as Names that may or may not resolve.
>
>Problems:
>
>The items above adds obscurity to an already obscure subject because
>end-users and developers are familiar with URLs and how they function as
>Resource Locators (Addresses). Thus, doing a two-fer that equates to:
>
>1. using URLs as generic Names;
>2. taking URL out of lexicon,
>
>results in the quandary that http-range-14 is attempting to address.
>
>Flip this all around, and the quandary remains. Again, let do another
>two-fer:
>
>1. using URIs (URL out of lexicon) as generic Names;
>2. using URIs as Resource Locators ,
>
>same difference as per earlier comment. Simply stating that 200 OK
>implies a document doesn't deliver clarity.
>
>A suggestion, that I think could really help.
>
>AWWW fundamental goal:  Objects have Names and Representation Addresses.
>Names and Addresses imply specific functionality. An Object Name
>Identifies an Object while an Object Address is how you access its
>Representation. Basically, you have a Name & Access functionality
>combined.
>
>HTTP uses 200 OK to basically confirm that an Address is functional with
>regards to user agent access to a given Resource. It is also safe to
>assume and infer that 200 OK is also a way of stating that:
>
>1. a URI Names and Address
>2. a URI is of type URL (so this is a specific type of URI, the kind
>that combines Name and Address/Access functionality)
>3. a URI that resolves directly to a Resource (data).
>
>HTTP uses 303 (in particular) to confirm that a URI isn't an Address (if
>it was it would 200 OK). Thus, if it isn't an Address it is a generic
>Name. Basically, 303 delivers good old indirection functionality, and
>via this functionality you can use URIs as Names that resolve to
>specific Resources via > 1 level of indirection.
>
>What's this really about, ultimately? Reasserting the fact that you can
>use URIs for generic Names or Addresses (Resource Locators). To the Web
>end-user and Developer, it means you can use hyperlinks for the following:
>
>1. Naming Things
>2. Locating Resources
>3. Naming Things in such a way that Names resolve to Resource(s) bearing
>(carrying) representation(s) of their referents.
>
>I hope this helps. I've never found this matter confusing, but I've
>always struggled with http-range-14 narratives based on the fact that
>its doesn't provide anecdotes that resonate with its target audience --
>Web developers or end-users.
>
>-- 
>
>Regards,
>
>Kingsley Idehen	
>President&  CEO
>OpenLink Software
>Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 02:02:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:36 GMT