Re: Proposal to amend the httpRange-14 resolution

2012/3/27 Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>:
> 2012/3/26 Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> thank you for your detailed input. I'll add my comments inline.
>>
>> 2012/3/26 Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>:
>>>
>>> On 2012-03 -26, at 01:31, トーレ エリクソン wrote:
>>>>>> This proposal entails a partial reversion of the httpRange-14
>>>>>> resolution. Specifically, it suggests that a representation retrieved
>>>>>> from a HTTP URI will never* be equivalent to what the URI denotes (the
>>>>>> resource), but will always be a description (of the state) of the
>>>>>> resource, eliminating the risk of confusing a resource with its
>>>>>> description.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> However, if you don't own the URI, stating this seems to irresponsible.
>>>> The owner might add a content-negotiated Swedish translation with a
>>>> dc:title of "Hittad" and make your statement invalid.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is hair-splitting -- yes, a generic IR URI may indeed by correspond to
>>> a series of more specific versions in different languages
>>> (See http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic and the associated ontology)
>>> and one can argue whether people incorrectly actually use
>>> one title to refer to the whole lot, but I think it is useful.
>>
>> I have no problem with adding the title to the generic resource,
>> especially if you own the URI. My understanding of Jonathan's text was
>> though that by looking at one representation titled "Trouvee", one
>> could infer that all representations would have the same title.
>
> This is an incorrect reading of what I wrote. I was very careful in
> what I said, and I did not say this.

Sorry if I misrepresented your text. I'll explain why I thought it
meant this below.

You started with
>>
To say that any representation retrieved from "http://example/hen" has
(or will have) "Trouvée" as its title, we can write (in Turtle
[turtle])
    [ir:onWebAt "http://example/hen"] dc:title "Trouvée".
[this tells that] if they dereference that URI, they will get
something with that dc:title [1]
>>

And then used the generic URI instead of the blank node.

>>
A common practice is to use an absolute URI as a name for a (generic)
information entity that is on the Web at that URI.
<http://example/hen> dc:title "Trouvée".
>>

Then you followed up with

>>
Whether we can expect in general that a dereferenceable URI will be
understood as a name for a (generic) information entity on the Web at
that URI is the essence of the heated httpRange-14 debate
>>

I assumed that this meant that when following httpRange-14 the RDF
above is expected. The URI seems to denote a generic resource. Further
on you connect the generic information entity with the class of
"information resources".

>>
We can say that "information resource" (the conventional term in Web
architecture) subsumes "generic information entity" as above.
>>

My train of thought was this: If a HTML document is retrieved by with
a 200 GET, then under httpRange-14 this is an information resource,
and also a generic information entity. Let's say that the HTML
document received has the dc:title "Trouvee". Then the generic
resource also has the same title (according to [1]) and so has all the
other resources available from the URI in question (also according to
[1]). I suppose "titled" was a bad choice or words, it was just prose
for
_:representation dc:title "Trouvee" .

Any clarification would be appreciated, but I know that you are
swamped with other tasks, so feel free to just accept my apology for
now.

Tore

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:11:15 UTC