Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:

>  * existing applications that assume that a 200 response is only given for an information resource may make false inferences about what a probe URI identifies (but this happens already, as people already publish data in this way)

I am very interested in the parenthetical statement here. One might
suppose that as someone who has been studying the issue for a long
time, I might have data on hand about people "publishing data in this
way", but I do not. I would really appreciate having in hand a list of
particular example URIs subject to alternative practice. This would be
a great resource to have available in discussion of the issue.

I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out),
that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the real issue is
not an IR/NIR type distinction, but rather a distinction in the
*manner* in which a URI gets its meaning, via instantiation (of some
generic IR) on the one hand, vs. description (of *any* resource,
perhaps even an IR) on the other. The whole
information-resource-as-type issue is a total red herring, perhaps the
most destructive mistake made by the httpRange-14 resolution.

Best
Jonathan

Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 13:53:18 UTC