- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 17:16:04 +0200
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Sorry, this is a review of which document? We may have version skew. In some earlier version I *did* use the word 'definition' in a sense similar to dictionary definition, and later thought better of it and switched to the blander 'documentation' which has a lower chance of implying any kind of completeness or definitiveness. No matter which document it is, I doubt I said that 'information resource' was important since I've been railing against this idea for five years. 'Meaning' as we have discussed is consent between two communicating parties and they can find their meaning wherever they choose to. Many people find the 200/non-200 distinction meaningful, I think, in connection with how the content relates to the resource. You treat the content of, say, a 300 differently from the way you treat the content of a 200. Jonathan On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: >> Reviews are welcome > > A quick review: > > The document assumes some things that I don't believe: > > - there's a determinable distinction between information resources and non-information resources, and thus between metadata and data. > - that URIs have (or can have) "definitions" ( except in a few obscure cases, e.g., with a URN, the naming authority could supply a definition). > - that the 'meaning' of a URI depends (can depend, should depend) on the behavior of the HTTP protocol > > > >
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 15:16:33 UTC