Re: hold up

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> Thus, an http/rest resource can *only* be something that has the property of
>> having it's state (even partially) managed via a transfer protocol,
>> something in the realm of the machine.
>>
>> the weather in london cannot be a rest resource, unless you can represent or
>> manipulate it's current state via HTTP, which you can't, you can only
>> represent or manipulate information about the weather in london with a
>> transfer protocol.
> 
> Do you mean a literal "OR" (logical disjunction) between representing
> OR manipulating? Or are you implying that both are necessary?

true disjunction, OR

for represent:
potentially transfer a full representation (all it's vital properties) 
of the thing - and I use transfer in the "move from one place to 
another" sense.

for manipulate:
directly change the state of the thing - and I mean directly in the 
sense that if you hooked a car up to http in order to remotely drive it, 
you could only directly influence the state of the process which 
controlled the solenoid which sent the signal which..

> If a true disjunction, then can you give examples of things where one
> can not "represent its current state via HTTP"?

the weather in LA - you cannot represent the vital property of it 
raining in LA such that a representation of it will wet you at your seat.

a car - you cannot represent the vital property of being able to touch it.

a living person - you cannot represent the vital property of life such 
that the representation of the person is alive.

> What sort of conditions would prevent this? Not being able to do so for all values
> of "current"? Not being able to do so for *any* value of "current"?

not being able to do so for all values of current, which includes 
spatial position, and that pretty much sets the bar for most things!

> Not having "state" (what sorts of things can have "state". Which can
> not?).

good one, I believe not having a state would mean you cannot transfer a 
representation of the things state yes - so.. abstractions? things 
without an instance?

> The statements you are bringing to our attention have the *sound* of
> something significant, but when looked at analytically I fear they do
> not have well worked out meaning.

snap! hopefully we can get there though.. the best written example I 
have yet for representation (or the clearest I feel) is:

[[
Moby Dick the book/novel has been digitized/webized and one of it's many 
properties is that a webresentation of it can be accessed via HTTP; one 
way of looking at it is to imagine that every single copy of moby dick 
has been removed from existence, all that is apart from this one 
http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/moby/ does moby dick the novel still 
exist such that all it's vital properties remain? yes. The same is true 
for a particular photo, a video, the declaration of independence, a book 
about moby dick the novel - and similarly this is a property which a 
another set of things does not have, for example me, you, a toucan and 
Dan's car.
]]

with the extension that you could /transfer/ (move) it from the machine 
it resides on now to your local machine, such that the representation 
you had was the only instance of the thing in existence.

define:existence!

cheers,

nathan

Received on Sunday, 27 February 2011 23:56:47 UTC