RE: HTTP Endpoints and Resources

>On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 11:56 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>  >Rhys,
>>  >
>>  >I like your recognition that 200 and 303 URIs have something in common,
>>  >but please don't refer to the 303 case has having an "http endpoint"
>>  >that "responds", because doing so would introduce the unnecessary
>>  >confusion of having the same URI denote two different things: an "http
>>  >endpoint" and the thing the URI was intended to denote -- a person, for
>>  >example.
>>  >
>>  No. This is confused because of the now venerable confusion, which
>>  continuously dogs all these discussions, between "identifying" in the
>>  sense of providing a functional Web-mediated connection to something,
>>  and referring to an object, aka denoting it. These are (forgive the
>>  shout) NOT THE SAME THING. Please don't get them confused. A name can
>>  denote without being attached (like all names off the Web) and it can
>>  be attached without denoting. This awful word "identifies" sometimes
>>  means one thing, sometimes another; but the two concepts are
>>  distinct.
>
>No, they're not.

Oh, don't be so bloody silly. Of course the CONCEPTS are distinct.

>Argument by assertion. No fun for either side, is it?

Well, I have examples to bolster my case, but Ive never even heard 
you make a case for your (Tim's?) position. Its simply obvious from 
the statement of the two relationships that they ARE different, a 
priori: they are defined differently. So you have the task of arguing 
your case, an argument which Ive never yet seen or heard. And in case 
you had better be careful, since the http-range-14 decision only 
makes them the same when there are 200 codes involved. I'd like to 
see where any writer on semantics has referred to HTTP codes, by the 
way.

>To my mind, Web Architecture is mostly about taking those two
>notions and jamming them together.

I'm glad that you agree there are two notions to be jammed. But it 
ought to be about putting them together intelligently, which requires 
taking some care to not get them so confused that one can't think or 
talk about the topics without everything getting muddled.

>Names off the Web are often used for access too ,
>as in the case of calling someone's name across a room.

Not in the same sense. This is merely a pun on 'access'. (What are 
the transfer protocols? If you call me and I say "What?", does that 
word constitute a REST-representation of me, the resource? If I call 
you and you don't hear me, is that a 404 error?)

And even if we allow your 'calling' cases, one can clearly 
distinguish the two different relationships between the name and the 
thing referenced or accessed.

Reference without access:
Joe (to Bill): Harry is a ...
Harry: You calling me?
Joe (to Harry): No, I was telling Bill about your new job.

Access without reference:
Joe (to Bill, at a distance): Harry!
Harry: You calling me?
Joe: Yes.
Harry: My name is Bill.
Joe. Oh, sorry. Bill, could you come over here a second?

Again:
Joe (to Bill, at a distance): Oi! You there!
Bill: You calling me?
Joe. Yes, you.

>p.s. I'm copying www-archive rather than www-tag because both
>of us have said all this in www-tag before, many times.

Right, and theres really very little point in trying to get the TAG 
to say anything sensible on this topic at present.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 19:30:24 UTC