- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:26:28 -0500
- To: Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net>
- Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote: > I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a burden on publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish to "refer to these information resources themselves", making them "unable to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF". > > What about minting a new URI at "http://information.resourcifier.net/encodedURI" or similar for talking about such things? The service could even add value by tracking last update times, content types, encodings, etc. > > Jason > > p.s. Don't bother criticizing the half baked idea, I thought about it for < 10 seconds. The point is 100 alternatives could have been hashed out in the time spent discussing and implementing http-range-14. I confess to finding this kind of sneering remark rather annoying. If you think it is this trivial to work out some 'alternative', why don't you come up with a few actual ideas and see what happens when they get a little peer review? Your idea, above, hardly makes first base, as Im sure you already realized when you added the p.s. So why not try inventing one that has a snowballs chance in hell of actually working? Im sure that the world would be delighted if you could solve this trivial problem in 5 ways, let alone a hundred. If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write classical model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You might want to start by reading Korzybski's 'General Semantics'. Pat > Kudos to google et al for ignoring it. > > On 6/15/2011 9:27 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: >> On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >>> OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running it past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that a description of something is in any useful sense isomorphic to the thing it describes. As in, some RDF describing, say, the Eiffel tower is not in any way isomorphic to the actual tower. (I also do not understand why you think this claim matters, by the way.) >>> Perhaps we are understanding the meaning of http-range-14 differently. My understanding of it is as follows: if an HTTP GET applied to a bare URI http:x returns a 200 response, then http:x is understood to refer to (to be a name for, to denote) the resource that emitted the response. Hence, it follows that if a URI is intended to refer to something else, it has to emit a different response, and a 303 redirect is appropriate. It also follows that in the 200 case, the thing denoted has to be the kind of thing that can possibly emit an HTTP response, thereby excluding a whole lot of things, such as dogs, from being the referent in such cases. >> Even with information resources there's a lot of flexibility in what >> HTTP can legitimately respond with, there needn't be bitwise identity >> across representations of an identified resource. Given this, I'm >> proposing a description can be considered a good-enough substitute for >> an identified thing. Bearing in mind it's entirely up to the publisher >> if they wish to conflate things, and up to the consumer to try and >> make sense of it. >> >> As a last attempt - this is a tar pit! - doing my best to take on >> board your (and other's) comments, I've wrapped up my claims in a blog >> post: http://dannyayers.com/2011/06/15/httpRange-14-Reflux >> >> Cheers, >> Danny. >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:27:03 UTC