RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14

Sorry to be dumb, but I don't understand what point you're making.

It sounds as if you're saying my URI use is a bad idea -- maybe it is -- 
but I don't see why you might think so.

#g
--

At 02:27 PM 10/3/02 -0700, David Orchard wrote:
>Graham,
>
>Wonderful. This meets the principle that ambiguity in identifiers is bad.
>
>There is no spoon.
>
>Cheers,
>Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > Graham Klyne
> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:50 PM
> > To: Simon St.Laurent
> > Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14
> >
> >
> >
> > At 11:52 AM 10/3/02 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> >
> > >In reading the minutes for the September 24th & 25th meeting, I found
> > >this morsel:
> > >------------------------------
> > >     TB: I propose that httpRange-14 be
> > >     de-prioritized. Two reasons (1) no consensus
> > >     (2) I don't think it affects the arch doc. I
> > >     would be amenable to close this issue with no
> > >     action.
> > >     DC: I agree with TB that httpRange-14 can be
> > >     closed with no impact on the arch doc.
> > >     RF: When you access a resource for today's
> > >     weather in Vancouver, and you get back info
> > >     that says "it's sunny", how do you know that
> > >     it doesn't mean "it's sunny everyday in
> > >     Vancouver." When you access a resource, you
> > >     need to be able to make assertions about the
> > >     resource and also representations of the
> > >     resource.
> > >     Resolved: "Defer" httpRange-14 with no action.
> > >     Objection: TBL.
> > >--------------------------------
> > >
> > >I'm not sure that "lack of consensus" is an appropriate reason to
> > >de-prioritize an issue which (at least from my perspective)
> > lies at the
> > >heart of an enormous number of conflicts regarding the proper use of
> > >URIs.  While it may be possible to keep those conflicts from spilling
> > >directly into a vaguely-worded architecture document, they
> > aren't going
> > >to go away easily.
> > >
> > >Might I suggest instead that the TAG close this issue, noting that
> > >consensus is not possible, and acknowledge the implications
> > of that lack
> > >of consensus in other work?
> > >
> > >That may seem to weaken the general usefulness of URIs, but
> > the weakness
> > >is already present - this would be acknowledging the problem
> > rather than
> > >deferring it to future visions of solution.
> >
> > I noted that discussion, and was tempted to respond.  Now I shall.
> >
> > I think that, maybe, consensus *is* possible.  At least, I
> > don't think
> > we've yet exhausted the possibilities around which consensus may form.
> >
> > In particular, I understand that the concern with not
> > restricting http:
> > URLs to documents is that it introduces ambiguity between a
> > non-web object
> > (e.g. my Car) and a web page that describes it.
> >
> > In some of my work, I have avoided this problem (somewhat
> > accidentally) by
> > having multiple HTTP: URIs that dereference the same web
> > page, but with
> > different intent;  e.g.
> >
> >    http://id.ninebynine.org/people/gk/
> >
> > is defined to identify to me, the person, but
> >
> >    http://www.ninebynine.org/Ident/people/gk/
> >
> > is defined to identify the web page that describes the identifier URI.
> >
> > In each case, the representation retrieved when dereferencing
> > the URL is
> > identical.  But (at least to my mind, as defining authority
> > for the URIs)
> > there is no ambiguity concerning what each URI actually identifies.
> >
> > #g
> >
> >
> > -------------------
> > Graham Klyne
> > <GK@NineByNine.org>
> >
> >

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 09:10:50 UTC