Re: NIR SIDETRACK Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

Hello Jonathan,

maybe I made an error by assuming that the term IR is inherent in the term 
representation - by assuming that a NIR cannot have a representation, only 
descriptions ?

But if a a NIR cannot have a representation and two different IRs cannot
have the same representation, then getting a representation of an IR
is as close as I can get to it.

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:32:37AM -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Michael Brunnbauer
> <brunni@netestate.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hallo Jonathan
> >
> > [off list. If you think your answer will be helpful to others, put it back on
> > the list]
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:54:09AM -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> >> That is: an IR is something that has a representation.
> > [...]
> >> It would be nice in a way because it would make HR14a
> >> completely vacuous. This is what I call "opt in" because you wouldn't
> >> be able to assume that what you GET is content (Tim's word, my
> >> "instance").
> >
> > Why would this definition make HR14 vacuous ? I would say that the rule
> > "from a statuscode 200, you can infer that you got a representation of what
> > the URI denotes" can be made with or without that definition.
> 
> What I mean by vacuous is that RFC 2616 (certainly HTTPbis) already
> says - in my reading at least - that the retrieved representation is a
> representation of the resource identified by the URI (or at least that
> the server is *saying* so, i.e. it is nominally so, which is usually
> good enough).
> 
> So this is something we already knew from the HTTP spec, which all of
> us pretty much agree to; neither the TAG nor anyone else would have to
> say that this is the case in any pronouncement resembling
> httpRange-14(a).
> 
> Maybe "vacuous" was a poor choice of word.
> 
> On the other hand the specs are all terribly murky, so maybe it would
> be good to repeat this somewhere.
> 
> In any case "information resource" as used in HR14a is well connected
> to AWWW and I think redefining the term, no matter how bad the
> definition, would just confuse things. You could say "HTTP resource"
> or something for resources that have representations (what would be an
> example of one that doesn't?). My opinion.
> 
> Best
> Jonathan
> 
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael Brunnbauer
> >
> > --
> > ++  Michael Brunnbauer
> > ++  netEstate GmbH
> > ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> > ++  81379 München
> > ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> > ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
> > ++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
> > ++  http://www.netestate.de/
> > ++
> > ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> > ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> > ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> > ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel

Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 15:53:29 UTC