W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:39:19 -0500
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Message-Id: <53EC4BD4-1795-419D-A02E-EFA45CA457B9@ihmc.us>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>

On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has flexibility, it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual thing? To me that sounds like saying, given that movies are projected, it is OK to say that fish are bicycles.
> Not that I think I did a non-sequiteur, it is totally ok to say that
> fish are bicycles, if that's what you want to say.
> [snip]
>> OK, thanks. Here is your argument, as far as I can understand it.
>> 1. HTTP representations may be partial or incomplete. (Agreed.)
>> 2. HTTP reps can have many different media types, and this is OK. (Agreed, though I cant see what relevance this has to anything.)
>> 3. A description is a kind of representation. (Agreed, and there was no need to get into the 'isomorphism' trap. We in KRep have been calling descriptions "representations" for decades now.)
>> 4. Therefore, a HTTP URI can simultaneously be understood as referring to a document and a car.
>> Whaaat? How in Gods name can you derive this conclusion from those premises?
> my wording could be better, but I stand by it...  a document
> describing the car, through HTTP, can be an equally valid
> representation of the named car resource as the car itself (as long as
> it's qualified by media type)

Not only do I not follow your reasoning, I don't even know what it is you are saying. The document is a valid *representation* of the car, yes of course. But as valid as the car itself? So you think a car is a representation of itself? Or are you drawing a contrast between the 'named car resource' and the car itself? ??? 

Maybe it would be best if we just dropped this now. I gather that you were offering me a way to make semantic sense of something, but Im not getting any sense at all out of this discussion, I am afraid.


> Cheers,
> Danny.
> -- 
> http://danny.ayers.name

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 20:39:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC