W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > February 2011

Re: hold up

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:56:05 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6AE495.1000708@webr3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
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.



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:21 UTC