- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:39:46 -0500
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Monday, July 22, 2002, at 11:32 AM, Tim Bray wrote: >>> *If* "nutrition facts and buying information" and "cooking >>> instruction" are reasonable representations of the same >>> concept/resource... then I guess that would be fine... but I'm >>> trying to think what the 'super-concept' might be >>> that admits representation as "nutrition facts etc." or "cooking >>> instructions". >> The concept is a box of cereal > I'm saying that these do not feel like reasonable representations of > the same resource. I think "nutrition facts" and "cooking > instructions" are totally different resources which deserve separate > URIs. Consider a future web in which it is routine to have > machine-processable versions of resources, how is the machine to > decide which representation it wants? Sorry, I should have been more clear. They aren't both http:representations of the resource, but they're related information (the type of relation is what's decided upon by the context). Perhaps the point I'm making is that getting a representation isn't the only type of resolution possible with URIs. -- Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com] I am large, I contain multitudes.
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 18:39:47 UTC