Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

Pat,

You still didn't get my point. You ask:

"In the context of the HTTP protocol, what can be a resource? What can  
be the thing sitting behind the HTTP interface?"

I take YOUR preferred answer to be: "It can only be a computational  
resource."

It appears that you THINK that my answer is: "It can be anything."

But that is NOT my answer. My answer is: "I don't know, I don't care,  
and it's the wrong question to ask. It's just a resource, something  
that has representations. If you wish to discuss such matters, then  
this automatically moves you outside of the scope of the HTTP protocol."

Can HTTP URIs identify people? As far as the operation of HTTP  
protocol is concerned, I'm 100% agnostic. It is simply unnecessary to  
answer that question in order to reason about, implement, or specify  
the HTTP protocol.

More below.

On 13 Jul 2009, at 19:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> 1. You are on the web architecture mailing list. It should have  
>> occurred to you that I use the word "representation" in the web  
>> architecture sense: a stream of bytes with a content type (and  
>> maybe additional metadata). Your examples about your painted self- 
>> portrait and the number 17 miss the point. It's like insisting on  
>> discussing human anatomy in a thread about object-oriented  
>> programming languages because not all "members" are instance-scoped  
>> variables.
>
> That would be a fine response if you had not, in the same email,  
> spoken of URI "identifying" people,

I did not say that.

> and told me in block capitals that the nature of the resources and  
> what counts as a representation, is entirely irrelevant to HTTP. To  
> repeat: you can't have it both ways. If you are talking solely about  
> architecture, then don't stray into non-architectural semantic issues.

I'm talking solely about a transfer protocol.

> People (and books and Mexican weather) are not computational/ 
> architectural entities: they play no role whatever in network  
> architecture.

Right, and I did not claim otherwise.

>> 2. I said: "As far as HTTP is concerned, it does not matter much  
>> what the resource actually is -- a document, a file on a server, a  
>> person, whatever." You heard: "A URI can identify a person." What I  
>> meant was: "For HTTP, it REALLY DOES NOT MATTER what the resource  
>> actually is."

Here, read this again. Look, I have no opinion on the question wether  
a HTTP URI can identify a person!

>> It is simply the thing that is thought to sit behind the HTTP  
>> interface and that the HTTP conversation is about. You can  
>> implement the HTTP protocol, both on the server and client side,  
>> while being totally agnostic about what can and cannot be  
>> identified by HTTP. All you need to know is that URIs identify  
>> something that can have publisher-chosen representations. Wether  
>> that something actually is a document, file on a server, or a  
>> person, is IRRELEVANT to discussions of the HTTP protocol.
>
> I'm sorry, I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS. I believe that YOU ARE WRONG. And  
> here is why. This thing, that is thought to sit behind the HTTP  
> interface, cannot be absolutely anything. It does have to have  
> certain properties simply by virtue of BEING THE KIND OF THING THAT  
> CAN SIT BEHIND ANY SUCH INTERFACE. That is, it has to be a  
> computational or maybe network engine of some kind.

That's not a necessary assumption. From prodding the interface, I  
cannot tell what's sitting behind it. I can just get representations  
of the thing, I cannot learn its nature. Hence why should I make  
assumptions about its nature?

> It has to be capable of accepting and emitting byte streams, and so  
> forth.

No. The byte streams are accepted/emitted by the web server, which is  
a separate component. The URI http://example.com:8080/foo.html tells  
me that there might be a server at example.com and I can maybe connect  
to port 8080 and make an HTTP request to hopefully get a  
representation of the thing identified by the URI, whatever it is. The  
web server is not the resource. The resource does not have to be a web  
server.

> People are not such entities, neither are books or galaxies or  
> numbers or imaginary aardvarks. But you claim that HTTP can deal  
> with URIs "identifying" such things.

No, I did not say that.

Although I'm sure that we can dream up contraptions that causally  
connect any of the above to a web server.

You want to legislate what kind of contraption is allowed behind the  
HTTP interface. I say: For specifying the HTTP protocol, let's not  
care, as long as a URI goes in and a representation comes out. We can  
gloss over the question what the resource actually *is*.

> Which is nonsense; or at any rate, it is nonsense if "identifies" is  
> understood in terms appropriate to network architecture. If, on the  
> other hand, "identifies" is understood as  including the  
> relationship between a symbolic name and a thing, which is often  
> called denotation or reference or naming, then it certainly makes  
> sense to say that a URI can "identify" a person or a book. But then,  
> HTTP is already a semantic specification as well as an architectural  
> one. It is about meaning and reference, not solely about network  
> transfer.

HTTP is NOT a semantic system. HTTP is NOT about denotation. In the  
context of HTTP, "identifies" simply means "names something that has  
representations." In the context of HTTP, "identifies" does not  
include denotation.

> I really don't care which path you take at this fork in the road,  
> but you can't go both ways. If HTTP is semantic, then it is about  
> denotation right down to the metal.

HTTP is not semantic.

> If it's not, then URI's can't "identify" people and books and  
> galaxies in the same sense (presumably a sense related to network  
> architecture in some way) that they "identify" web sites and digital  
> documents.

In the context of HTTP, URIs identify things that have representations.

> PLEASE get your story straight, one way or the other. (Again, that  
> is a y'all.)
>
>>
>> Because you misunderstood my point
>
> I do not think I did misunderstand it.

Your writing suggests otherwise.

> Your POV has a background assumption which you seem to be (from  
> these emails) unaware of, and which is false; indeed, ridiculous: to  
> wit, that all things that can be referred to are things that can be  
> thought of in terms appropriate to a computer network architecture.

I do not hold that assumption. I hold the following assumptions:

1. The purpose of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol is to exchange  
representations over networks.

2. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol spec should treat HTTP URIs simply  
as identifiers inside a transfer protocol.

3. If people want to do weird shit with HTTP URIs, beyond exchanging  
representations over networks, that's great and more power to them.

4. The HTTP spec does not need to worry about regulating such weird  
shit.

5. Someone should clearly worry about such weird shit, but not in the  
HTTP spec.

> For example, the very idea of "layering" is a computational notion.  
> There is no layering in the world outside computer science.

Not getting your point. I'm talking about transfer protocols and  
knowledge representation. What does the world outside of computer  
science have to do with that?

>> on these two counts, you end up ranting against a POV that I do not  
>> hold.
>>
>> I especially continue to maintain that any talk about denotation is  
>> out of place on the HTTP protocol level. There is no such thing as  
>> denotation in the universe of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol. Yes,  
>> people obviously use HTTP URIs to denote all sorts of things, and a  
>> lot can be said about how one should model resources and  
>> representations based on the things one wants to denote, and what  
>> one can or cannot infer about the denotation of a URI based on HTTP  
>> interactions, but none of this matters one bit for the actual  
>> operations of the protocol.
>
> Seems to me that this may have been true before http-range-14, but  
> it is not a stance that can possibly be maintained in the face of  
> that decision.

I think you're insisting on an unhelpful reading of httpRange-14.  
Again, try wrapping your head around that layering idea:

There is one layer that tells you how you can push representations  
around the network. That's HTTP.

There is another layer that tells you how to best model the world as  
resources and representations. That's where RDF, denotation, Linked  
Data, information resources etc live. AWWW and other best practices  
documents say a lot about this layer.

httpRange-14 is about the second layer, not about the first. So I  
don't see how httpRange-14 has any effect on anything that concerns  
the first layer.

> And your final sentence above is, surely you can yourself see,  
> tendentious. If the HTTP 'layer' really were completely unconcerned  
> with denotation, how could one *possibly* infer anything about what  
> a URI denotes from *anything* about HTTP interactions?

The HTTP protocol allows you to infer things about the  
*representations* that a resource has. That's all, you cannot learn  
anything else about the resource just through HTTP. However, by  
inspecting those representations, you might learn something about the  
intended denotation of the URI. But that, again, is outside the scope  
of the HTTP protocol.

>> The protocol is just about pushing representations around.
>
> Well, I would be delighted if this were true. But then the HTTP  
> specs should not claim or even hint at the idea that URIs can  
> "identify" non-computational things, or that such things can have  
> "representations" in its specialized sense.

I'm delighted to inform you that I'm pretty sure that the HTTP spec  
doesn't hint at the idea of URIs identifying non-computational things,  
anywhere.

> (It would be very good manners, in fact, to clarify just what that  
> highly specialized sense of "representation" is, and state  
> explicitly that it is not intended to cover any wider sense of  
> representation, for example the sense in which it it used in such  
> phrases as "knowledge representation".)

I think that AWWW, RFC 2616, and Roy's Chapter 5 are all very clear  
about this. I don't understand how you can read any of those and walk  
away thinking that an acrylic painting might be a representation.

> And you should be quite open and clear about the fact that this view  
> of HTTP is not compatible with the http-range-14 decision.

I don't see that incompatibility.

> Pat
>
> PS. You never did tell me what you think "identifies" means, by the  
> way.
> Apparently it means something, since you dismissed my interpretation  
> of it as inappropriate. So there are some restrictions on the  
> meaning of "identifies". Can you even sketch what they might be?

As far as HTTP is concerned, "identifies" is the relationship between  
a URI and the resource whose representation you receive when you  
perform a GET on the URI. That's all.

(I'm just talking about HTTP here; RDF people often use "identifies"  
synonymous with "denotes", but such talk goes beyond and outside the  
scope of the HTTP protocol.)

Let's please try to somehow wrap up this discussion. Can you somehow  
live with the POV that one can specify and implement HTTP while  
avoiding the question what resources actually are? And that questions  
such as "What does a given URI denote? What is a valid representation  
of a given resource? Are there things that ought not to be denoted by  
URIs?" can be answered elsewhere than the HTTP spec?

Best,
Richard



>
>
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2009, at 01:31, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> On Jul 11, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pat,
>>>>
>>>> On 10 Jul 2009, at 01:32, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>>>> If the server has a transferable representation, it would
>>>>>> respond to the GET with the appropriate status code (200 or 304).
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, IF it were driven solely by what one might call  
>>>>> rational HTTP architectural principles. BUt surely the whole  
>>>>> issue about httprange14 is that it introduces new principles  
>>>>> which on their face have nothing to do with http architecture as  
>>>>> such, but to do with denotation and naming.
>>>>
>>>> Not as far as HTTP is concerned. HTTP is just a transfer  
>>>> protocol. The HTTP world is really simple:
>>>>
>>>> 1. There are URIs. URIs are thought to identify things called  
>>>> resources.
>>>
>>> OK, stop there and tell me what you mean here by "identifies".  
>>> Because...
>>>
>>>> As far as HTTP is concerned, it does not matter much what the  
>>>> resource actually is -- a document, a file on a server, a person,  
>>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> ... in the usual sense of 'identifies' that one might expect to be  
>>> use in the context of a network transfer protocol, which is  
>>> similar to the use one might expect when talking about programming  
>>> language identifiers and what they identify, it most certainly  
>>> does matter. In particular, it simply does not make sense to  
>>> speak, using that normal terminology, of 'identifying' a person  
>>> (or a galaxy or a sodium atom, etc.); in fact, it does not make  
>>> sense to talk of identifying anything much beyond some kind of  
>>> data structure or data object. So if HTML claims to be able to  
>>> make sense of talking of 'identifying' people (for example), it  
>>> must be in a wholly different space than all previous  
>>> computationally based notational systems, and be using the word  
>>> "identify" in a wholly different sense. And, to repeat, can you  
>>> tell me what that sense is?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Resources (whatever they are) are thought to have things  
>>>> called representations. As far as HTTP is concerned, it is  
>>>> totally up to the server owner to decide what's a representation  
>>>> of what. After the server owner has made their decision, a  
>>>> resource either has a representation or not.
>>>
>>> Really? OK, I will take you at your word. I am a server owner, and  
>>> I will decide that a certain resource, to wit, me, has a thing  
>>> called a representation of me. This representation of me is in  
>>> fact a portrait, painted using acrylic paints on a piece of  
>>> masonite approximately 30 cm square almost exactly a month ago:  
>>> but let us not go into details, as you tell me that such details  
>>> are none of HTTP's business. Still, the representation exists, and  
>>> the resource has it. OK, let us proceed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. If a resource has a representation, then a GET to its URI  
>>>> should be answered by 200. If not, then 303, 404 or 410 would be  
>>>> fine choices.
>>>
>>> So, HTTP must reply to a GET on my URI with a 200. OK, what should  
>>> it put as the payload of this 200 response, attached to the code  
>>> information? HOw do I get acrylic-coated masonite into an http  
>>> response? There is no representation which can be transmitted in  
>>> bits. You did not mention this aspect in your above summary: was  
>>> that an omission?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I repeat: For the operation of the HTTP protocol, IT DOES NOT  
>>>> MATTER what exactly a resource is and what the exact relationship  
>>>> between resources and representations is.
>>>
>>> As you can see, I took advantage of this freedom in my example.
>>>
>>>> All these matters of denotation, information resources and so on  
>>>> are introduced by higher layers of the architecture.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Denotation is not introduced by a higher level, and even if  
>>> it were, it would not be higher in an architectural sense. You, in  
>>> this very message, in fact brought denotation into the picture, by  
>>> telling me that a URI can "identify" a person. URIs are symbols  
>>> strings, and the ONLY POSSIBLE SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIP between ANY  
>>> symbol and a physical object, is denotation. Sorry to shout there  
>>> a little, but the point needs to be made strongly. That is what  
>>> "denotation" means: it is all that is left of "identifying" when  
>>> you take away the actual network machinery, the computational byte- 
>>> transferring. And you have to take this away when you start  
>>> claiming to talk of relationships between names (of any kind) and  
>>> non-computational entities such as people (or indeed of any kind),  
>>> simply because computational byte-transfer talk is COMPLETELY  
>>> IRRELEVANT to semantic relationships (such as "identification")  
>>> between symbols (of any kind) and non-computational entities. The  
>>> fact, if it is a fact, that this word is not in your technical  
>>> vocabulary is entirely irrelevant. By claiming that your symbols  
>>> "identify" non-computational entities such as people or books (or  
>>> the weather in Oaxacala, to take another random example) , you are  
>>> no longer playing in the network-architectural sandbox, precisely  
>>> because these kind of things simply are not connected to networks  
>>> in the same functional sense that things like web servers are.  
>>> Either HTTP is a computational notion or it isn't. If it is, then  
>>> it is indeed quite simple. And I would be delighted if the HTTP  
>>> literature simply restricted itself to the computational world.  
>>> But it does not, and never has: HTTP has ALWAYS had these claims  
>>> to semantic grandeur: it has ALWAYS claimed to be not just about  
>>> web sites and web servers and files and documents, but about the  
>>> whole grand span of symbol usage to refer to absolutely anything  
>>> in any possible universe. And if indeed that is what HTTP is  
>>> claiming to be able to talk about, then it is about denotation,  
>>> right out of the box.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it would be useful to provide guidance to publishers about  
>>>> how best to model their information space as resources and  
>>>> representations. But this is out of scope for the HTTP protocol.
>>>
>>> See above. If indeed it is out of scope, so is any talk of URIs  
>>> "identifying" people. You can't have it both ways. Either you are  
>>> doing real semantics or you aren't. If you aren't, then don't make  
>>> ridiculous claims about "identifying" things that have no possible  
>>> connection to any physical network, or of "representations" that  
>>> cannot be sent in a byte stream.
>>>
>>>> The HTTP protocol kicks in AFTER the publisher has made up their  
>>>> mind about what resources they have and wether they have  
>>>> representations or not.
>>>
>>> OK, please tell me how to use HTTP to send my piece of masonite  
>>> attached to a 200 code. I've made up MY mind: over to you.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, different subcommunities have different opinions on how to  
>>>> model resources and representations. That's not a good thing, and  
>>>> it would be good for interoperability if everyone agreed.  
>>>> However, this is pretty much orthogonal to any discussion of the  
>>>> HTTP protocol. As long as the subcommunities subscribe to the  
>>>> basic "URI-identifies-resource-which-can-have-representations"  
>>>> model, HTTP can accomodate them.
>>>>
>>>> Now let me take off my RDF hat for a bit.
>>>>
>>>> The suggested change for the 303 text came about because one  
>>>> subcommunity had the funny idea that some resources SHOULD have  
>>>> URIs but NO representations and it should STILL be possible to  
>>>> get information about them via HTTP.
>>>
>>> No, that is not the primary reason. Http-range-14 is not about  
>>> resources, it is about URIs and what they denote. The dilemma is  
>>> that people want 'normal' URIs to denote what it that HTTP thinks  
>>> of them as identifying, the "information resource" (not that that  
>>> matters). Which would be fine, except that there are some URIs  
>>> which people want to denote something else. And still, actually  
>>> for different ('linked data', Timblish) reasons, people want a GET  
>>> on those URIs to finish up, one way or another, with useful  
>>> information being returned. This is a problem. It would be ugly to  
>>> have two 'kinds' of URI, and impossible to change the millions of  
>>> 'normal' URIs in any way at all. The decision allows the few non- 
>>> normal URIs to take part in a slightly irrational HTTP dance which  
>>> allows everyone to say: look, since it didn't return a 200 code,  
>>> its not 'normal', and HTTP says it doesn't identify anything at  
>>> all; so the 'normal' assumptions about what it denotes are  
>>> cancelled. And that cancellation is the entire content of the  
>>> decision: it has no other purpose. The nature of the entity which  
>>> handles the GET, and the presence or absence of 'representations'  
>>> of it, are irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> It beats me why anyone would want to do that
>>>
>>> The reason is that there are, believe it or not, entities in the  
>>> universe other than web servers; and people want to refer to them  
>>> using URIs.
>>>
>>>> ; but if we can make them happy with a minimal tweak to the  
>>>> language of an existing status code, then why not. HTTP is for  
>>>> everyone.
>>>>
>>>>> If the URI in the GET request is not intended to denote the  
>>>>> resource to which the GET is directed, then that resource must  
>>>>> issue a 303 redirection, and must not return a representation  
>>>>> using a 200 status code.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as denotation in HTTP. The only relation  
>>>> between URIs and resources in HTTP is "identifies".
>>>
>>> Which, if i means anything at all when used between a symbol and a  
>>> non-computational entity, means 'denote' (or, if you prefer,  
>>> 'refers to' or 'is a name for'; they are all equivalent usages.)  
>>> And again, I challenge you (or anyone else) to tall me what  
>>> "identifies" can possibly mean, in thee circumstances, other than  
>>> this.
>>>
>>>> If you care about other relations, you have to figure out how to  
>>>> translate them into the "URI-identifies-resource-which-can-have- 
>>>> representations" model of HTTP.
>>>
>>> That model is either (1) already about denotation, or (2) utterly  
>>> broken, or (3) meaningless as stated.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That has nothing to do with the existence or not of such a  
>>>>> representation. Even if the representation exists and the server  
>>>>> has access to it, it cannot return it with a 200 code when the  
>>>>> URI is intended to denote some other thing, in particular a non- 
>>>>> information resource of some kind.
>>>>
>>>> Wether a representation exists or not for a particular kind of  
>>>> resource is entirely up to the server owner, as far as HTTP is  
>>>> concerned. If you subscribe to a religion that says, "Thou shall  
>>>> not make a representation of me, for I am not an information  
>>>> resource", then that's great, and let me shake your hand brother,  
>>>> but this has no effect on HTTP.
>>>
>>> But thats the easy case. The hard case, for you, is when I use  
>>> that very handy English word "representation" is one of its normal  
>>> senses, not when I refuse to use it at all. There are many,  many  
>>> kinds of representations of things, and only a miniscule  
>>> proportion of them have anything even remotely to do with  
>>> computers or network transfer protocols.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If we follow your rule, above, and also httprange14, then a  
>>>>> server can be placed in an impossible position. If it has a  
>>>>> representation of itself which  could be put into a 200-code  
>>>>> response, and it receives a GET request with a URI which it  
>>>>> knows (somehow, perhaps by some externally agreed convention) is  
>>>>> being used to denote a non-information resource; what should it  
>>>>> do? HTTPrange14 requires it to not deliver a 200-coded reply,  
>>>>> but your criterion requires that it must. This is why I think  
>>>>> the wording should make absilutely minimal assumptions about  
>>>>> what exactly the 303 means.
>>>>
>>>> (RDF hat back on) Any sensible definition of "non-information  
>>>> resource" obviously MUST entail "does not have representations in  
>>>> the HTTP sense". In fact, that IS the definition of "non- 
>>>> information resource", in my book.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, but that is completely irrelevant to my point. The  
>>> server, in my example, is not the non-information resource that  
>>> the URI refers to; that is precisely why httprange14 requires it,  
>>> the server, to emit a 303 code rather than a 200 code. It is  
>>> merely the servant whose job it is to emit the appropriate code to  
>>> make everything work properly. But it is AN information resource,  
>>> and it may well have a representation (in the http sense) of  
>>> itself. Its just a different resource than the one the URI denotes/ 
>>> refers to.
>>>
>>>> Wrapping up:
>>>>
>>>> For the function of the HTTP transfer protocol, it does not  
>>>> matter what exactly the nature of the things identified by URIs is.
>>>
>>> Oh, but it does. Because HTTP talks about information transfer  
>>> between entities which can transfer information, but it talks of  
>>> 'identification' of ANY THINGS WHATSOEVER, whether they can or  
>>> even possibly could transfer information. For example, a numeral  
>>> identifies a number, and also is a representation of it. So HTTP  
>>> should apply to this case as well, according to what you say here.  
>>> I should be able to send a GET request to the number seventeen and  
>>> expect to get sent back a 200-coded response with a suitable  
>>> numeral in its body, say "17". I know that is ridiculous: but it  
>>> FOLLOWS FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING; ergo, what you are saying is  
>>> ridiculous.  So you ought to modify what you are saying, so that  
>>> it makes more sense.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the function of the HTTP transfer protocol, it does not  
>>>> matter wether the things you serve as representations on your  
>>>> server make particularly good representations of the resources.
>>>>
>>>> There are different schools of thought that try to clarify the  
>>>> nature of the "identifies" and "has representation"  
>>>> relationships, and this is critically important if we want to use  
>>>> HTTP URIs as identifiers for things that exist outside of the  
>>>> Web. But the HTTP protocol itself is and should be agnostic with  
>>>> regard to your position in these debates. That's layering.
>>>
>>> No, it is a poisonous combination of semantic (or maybe  
>>> philosophical or semiotic) ignorance, and hubris. You want http to  
>>> be universal, but you are claiming a kind of universality which  
>>> goes way beyond anything to do with network architecture, and so  
>>> you can't escape the consequences by appealing to network design  
>>> principles.  Maybe you don't intend to be doing this, but it is  
>>> being done by what you (and I should cast this in a kind of  
>>> anonymous plural, as the excellent southern phrase y'all, as I  
>>> don't intend this rant to be directed at you in particular) are  
>>> actually saying.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat
>>>>>
>>>>>> ....Roy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 00:32:15 UTC