- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:44:40 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F746748.1040704@openlinksw.com>
On 3/29/12 9:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: > So maybe an alternative might be to say > that although what you get with a 200 is a representation, it isn't an > "authoritative representation" until other information (describedby > etc) is taken into consideration. What about inferring, with clarity, that a resource and its representation are *potentially* ambiguous without additional clarity provide by relations of the kind delivered by :describedby. We are dealing resource representation resolution and fidelity. If you come at the resource from a certain world view (e.g., information space) you have a resource with fine-grained representation. For instance, and HTML resource is structured enough for browsers to render Web Pages. Come at it from a different world view (e.g., data space) and you have a blob since the content doesn't conform to the required structural fidelity of an entity-attribute-value graph, and even worse, actual pathways to said graph become skewed (re. follow-your-nose navigation via name->address indirection ) if hyperlink (e.g., HTTP URI) based name and address choices introduce ambiguity. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 13:45:13 UTC