Re: The range of the HTTP dereference function

(written a week ago or more... I have a problem pressing send.
Or my mailer had a problem realizing it had sent it)

> > URIs can identify anything.
> >
> > However, different schemes have different properties.
> > HTTP is a protocol which provides, for the client, a mapping
> > (the http URI dereference function)
> > from URI starting with "http:" and not containing a "#" to
> > a representation of a document.  The document is the
> > abstract thing and the representation is bits.
> >
> > You say that what I call document could be widened to include
> > cars.
> No, I don't have to.  You are making an implementation decision about what
> is behind the interface, namely that it consists of a document.  That is
> wrong because it violates the principle of separation of concerns and
> introduces unnecessary coupling into a system that does not need it.

No, I am saying nothing about the implementation at all.

I am talking about the interface which the HTTP protocol defines.

I am saying that the HTTP 200 response indicates that
the body is a representation in bits of the resource requested.
This works very well do long as the notional resource is some
information which can be represented in various ways.
The HTTP headers refer to that information item.

It doesn't work when you consider the resource to be something
like the person whose home page it is.
You can't use the same URI to refer to the person and the
home page.
(You *can* use a relation, like "the person whose home page
is  xxxx").  The the properties of one and the properties
of the other are quite different.  So you have to chose one.
Now, as HTTp has a whole load of machinery for talking about the
web page, and none for talking about the person, it would
be hard work (like design a new protocol) to say that
the HTTP URI refers to the person. You could.  You would
ahve to gradfather all the HTTP headers about the language for
example to mean "language of the page describing".

But in fact we have two great things.

1. HTTP which allows the state of a set of documents to
  be known across the planet

2. RDF, which given a set of documents allows any manner
of abstract set of concepts to be defined.

In combination, they work well.  But don't let's expect HTTP caches
to have to cache cars.


> If, on the other hand, you define a language for describing
> and, using that language, declare that what is behind the interface for
> resource is in fact a document, then you have defined something which is
> addition to the semantics of the Web interface.  It may have value for
> someone to know that, but it doesn't come without cost.  If you then build
> software that depends on the resource description being consistent with
> resource implementation, but fail to constrain that relationship to be
> then you have introduced a potential fault in the system.  It may be
> to build such a system, but it is not useful for the Web itself.
> And, as I said, there are many robots on the Web that can be remotely
> monitored and controlled via HTTP.  They are not documents.
> There is no spoon.  It is a fundamental rule of interface design.
> > Of course, you can always take a system and remove a domain
> > or range restriction in theory.  But if inference systems use it
> > and you take it away, they break.
> Inference systems that are based on false axioms are broken by design.
> I cannot "take away" something that has been a feature of the Web
> architecture since 1993.

Exactly.  The fact that HTTP URIs referto things which can
be represented in bits is a pretty basic fact.

> > - This is not what people do at the moment.
> >
> > - The properties of HTTP are useful to know, and to be able
> >  to infer things from.  For example, if I ask
> >  { <telnet://> log:contents ?x } -> { ?x a
:Interesting }.
> > then software would be allowed to infer, from the fact that a telnet URI
> > involved
> > that there will be no defined contents.
> I don't understand what you mean.  RDF does not improve understanding
> If I were to log a telnet session with Melvyl (UC's library catalog), then
> it would have quite meaningful contents.  I just won't be able to
> them without knowing the proprietary command/response syntax.  It would
> be meaningful to log a conversation with the Web interface to Melvyl under
> <>, which performs the same function on
> the same database behind the scenes, but with slightly more understandable
> client-server interactions (CGI form fields).
> If it were true that a URI scheme defines the nature of a resource, then
> it would be impossible to create a resource that is available through
> more than one URI scheme.  We know that to be false.
> > Similarly, if    tn:logOfPort  related a session log to the port of the
> > server for that session,
> > { ?x tn:logOfPort   <> } will be known not to
> > without retrieving <>,  because it knows that
> > takes as object
> > something which is in a class disjoint with the range of http.
> That makes absolutely no sense to me.
> > These are useful rules.  They connect with common sense understandings
> > and also by being architectural invariants,  they provide stable bases
> > building
> > more efficient systems.
> Those are not architectural invariants.  They are incomplete statements
> in RDF that have no meaning to the Web architecture.
> > Why do you want to extend the range of http URI dereference to cars?
> >
> > plate://us/ma/123yui  could still be defined to identify cars - I don't
> > object to other URI schemes identifying cars.  uuid schemes can
> > as far as I know now.
> You want to create a URI scheme that is specific to the implementation of
> the type of resources to which it points?  That goes against everything
> have said to me in the past about URI.
> > http2:// could be defined to have return codes
> > "Here is the contents of x which is a document" and "Here is some
> > information about x"
> > so that as a superset of HTTP it could provide a space in which
> > abstract objects existed.
> Why should I create two separate namespaces just because there is a
> desire to identify two separate resources.  The only thing needed to
> relate resource X to some other resource "stuff about X" is an external
> link.  Metadata.
> > But http1.1 does not have that and that fact is a useful one to record,
> > think
> Metadata is defined by the relationships between resources, not by an
> attribute of the access mechanism.  XML doesn't become any more or less
> powerful when it is delivered via HTTP versus e-mail.
> > In this way, Resource in URI and Resource in RDF can be similarly
> > but we have an important concept of a <part of the Web information
> > <document?> or whatever.
> Which is false.  RDF is broken if it cannot describe the Web in its
> The whole point in changing the model of the Web from a collection of
> Universal Document Identifiers that can be used to retrieve documents to
> one where Uniform Resource Identifiers are used to identify resources that
> can be accessed in the form of a representation through a uniform
> was so that we could accurately model how people have been actively using
> the Web since computational hypertext was introduced in 1993.
> ....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 13:03:33 UTC