- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:46:40 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
On 13 June 2011 02:28, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > Next point: there can indeed be correspondences between the syntactic structure of a description and the aspects of reality it describes. That is what I was calling isomorphism (which I still don't think was inaccurate). But ok, say there are correspondences instead. I would suggest that those correspondences are enough to allow the description to take the place of a representation under HTTP definitions. > But I don't think all this is really germane to the http-range-14 issue. The point there is, does the URI refer to something like a representation (information resource, website, document, RDF graph, whatever) or something which definitely canNOT be sent over a wire? I'm saying conceptually it doesn't matter if you can put it over the wire or not. >> But replace "a novel written by a dog" for "dog" in the above. Why >> should the concept of a document be fundamentally any different from >> the concept of a dog, hence representations of a document and >> representations of a dog? > > I dont follow your point here. If you mean, a document is just as real as a dog, I agree. So? But if you mean, there is no basic difference between a document and a dog, I disagree. And so does my cat. Difference sure, but not necessarily relevant. >> Ok, you can squeeze something over the wire >> that represents "a novel written by a dog" but you (probably) can't >> squeeze a "dog" over, but that's just a limitation of the protocol. > > So improved software engineering will enable us to teleport dogs over the internet? Come on, you don't actually believe this. It would save a lot of effort sometimes (walkies!) but all I'm suggesting is that if, hypothetically, you could teleport matter over the internet, all you'd be looking at as far as http-range-14 is concerned is another media type. Working back from there, and given correspondences as above, a descriptive document can be a valid representation of the identified resource even if it happens to be an actual thing, given that there isn't necessary any "one true" representation. We don't need the Information Resource distinction here (useful elsewhere maybe). Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 01:47:07 UTC