- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 16:56:30 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
I completely misread this message. Oops. I hope to give it another go... On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 00:03 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > Dan, I don't think I've got my point across, and its getting lost in > all this confusion about information resourceness. Its really a very > simple point, and I can make it with a very simple example. Suppose A > is an RDF graph, and B is an RDF/XML file which encodes/is a surface > syntax of/represents (choose your favorite terminology) that graph A. > And suppose U is a URI which "identifies" B, in the sense that what > you get back, when you do an HTTP GET using U, is a > 'representation' (in the REST sense) of B with a 200 code attached. > That is, the relationship between U and B is exactly like that between > the URI of a web page, and the web page itself. > > My point is simply that under these circumstances, we are pretty much > obliged by http-range-14, as I understand it, to say that U denotes B; > that is, it denotes the thing it HTTP-identifies. [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 21:56:11 UTC