- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:33:43 -0500
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>, Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>, Dave Reynolds <dave@epimorphics.com>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > 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. +1000. There is no need for anyone to even talk about "information resources". The important point about http-range-14, which unfortunately it itself does not make clear, is that the 200-level code is a signal that the URI *denotes* whatever it *accesses* via the HTTP internet architecture. We don't need to get into the metaphysics of HTTP in order to see that a book (say) can't be accessed by HTTP, so if you want to denote it (the book) with an IRI and stay in conformance with this rule, then you have to use something other than a 200-level response. Pat > > Best > Jonathan > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Friday, 23 March 2012 14:34:22 UTC