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

Re: hold up

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 02:42:41 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinuEDs2ActzfZ2Kzzxa_6dBkk6Uo86Lk-nq+i=J@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> 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.

I'm perhaps getting closer to understanding you here, but one thing
that is unclear is what the difference "a full representation" and the
the "thing".
Clearly there is something different between the two (at least I
presume so, as you make a distinction).
Then, what properties are vital to the "representation". Presumably
these are fewer than those of the thing. (else how to distinguish).

Now, to put some vital into what might otherwise be considered an
"information resource". Suppose that a document  (a news report) only
make sense if you live in a certain place (perhaps it makes reference
to the shape of a shadow of a certain building in the town - now
demolished -  in which the newspaper in which it is published). Can
its "vital properties" be transferred? is understanding that reference
the equivalent of getting wet from the weather, and therefore not

> 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..

I'll suggest that this one isn't important for our conversation. I
thought you were using it earlier to rule out things that can't be
changed by a POST. But since you say it is a disjunction I

>> 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.

And if you're message includes an instruction to your water-dispersing
chair to wet 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.

A book about the cuisine of bangkok. Once can not represent the vital
property of knowing what the spices smell like. (?)

>> 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?

Like circles (abstractions). (?)
I don't know of any things without instances.

>> 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?

Those vital properties being....
(I don't think you need the vital properties bit)

> yes. The same is true for a  particular photo,

We must mean a different thing by "particular". Each particular
photograph (each print) is different - different thicknesses of ink,
paper, etc.
I can't imagine copying its vital properties, at least as high as the
bar you have set is.

> a video, the declaration of independence,

Perhaps the *wording* of the declaration of independence. The document
is singular.

> 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.

What you talk about here is very much like what we call "generically
dependent continuant" in BFO (the Basic Formal Ontology), and upon
which the IAO (information artifact ontology) is based. If you are
thinking in this direction you might want to look into it.



> define:existence!

being ?

> cheers,
> nathan
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 07:43:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:22 UTC