Re: A#B where A redirects to C#D ('tertiary resources')

On Oct 30, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> Funny, I saw that there was a reply and thought to myself "I bet that's Pat..."

See, it is possible to have free will and be part of a deterministic universe.
> 
> Take my question "how can an element have a representation?" not as
> rhetorical but as a genuine request for information.

Fine, but I have a prior request for information. What do you mean by "element" here? You suddenly use the term in the middle of your message, without any explanation. 

> Elements seem mathematical to me

Well, if you say so. As far as I am concerned, you are might as well say that flogoblitzen are mathematical. Im sure you are right, but I have no way to make a judgement for myself.

> (they're either bit strings or tree
> structures), and Tim has ruled out "representations" for mathematical
> things. But I don't really care - even if you decide elements have
> "representations", you'd have the problem of figuring out what those
> "representations" are and what their fragments are. Either the specs
> or some forceful personality would have to say (since there is no
> definition of "representation" that would allow "x is a current
> representation of y" to be falsifiable), and neither does.
> 
> Supposing that elements were representable, how would that improve
> matters? You would say that A#B is the B fragment of a representation
> of the element C#D. OK, that's fine... maybe there's no problem, maybe
> this can be a convincing story. Then we should document the reasoning
> that gets us to that conclusion.
> 
> I guess I've given up on trying to define the webarch terms, since
> every such attempt gets booed down, and generally treat them as
> unknowns to be solved for, given some axioms about them. So the focus
> should be on the axioms. If we can agree on those, then everyone can
> choose the interpretation that makes them happy.
> 
> Anyhow, didn't you once tell me that seeking definitions was a vain endeavor?

Indeed I did, and even as I hit the send I knew that would come back to haunt me. OK, not *definitions*, but just some indication of what you mean, maybe? I am guessing that 'representation' means awww- or REST- representation, OK, and Im guessing that we are talking about "information" resources rather than resources in general, since its kind of hard to make sense of having a ID for a frag of, say, Julius Caesar or the great nebula in Andromeda. But "element" just came out of left field, and left me gasping.

Pat

> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> It would be a great aid towards being able to understand what this discussion is about if the terms "resource", "fragment", "element" and "representation" were defined or at least elicidated somewhere. Apparently, for example, you find it hard to believe that an "element" can have a representation. Why is this considered puzzling or odd? What is it about "elements" which makes them unrepresentable (in your sense)?
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Saturday, 30 October 2010 23:12:58 UTC