RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14

Hi Graham,

I think David is agreeing with your idea. 

The discussion in the TAG F2F in one direction went pretty much to the same
place as you suggest, albeit disambiguating Car and document about a car
with http://example.org/car and http://example.org/car.html each providing
identical representations but being different resources. 

What the TAG seemed willing to agree on was that ambiguity is bad for the
Web. From TAG minutes [1]:

  TB: I suggest procedurally that we:

   1. For next arch doc: Change principles 2 and 7
      to be "Ambiguity in the relationship between
      URIs and resources is harmful for humans and
      machines." Two instances of ambiguity are
      (1) lack of resources and (2) confusion
      about what is identified. Such ambiguity
      easily arises; should be avoided. This can
      be done in practice. Add some examples.
   2. We don't need to say what range of HTTP URIs
      is for arch doc.

    TBL: I think that's reasonable, but doesn't
    address issue 14.

    Resolved: Accept TB's proposal for revised
    principle.

David was saying that what you proposed is in line with where we got to on
the issue.

The Matrix reference was a running joke on the existence of resources. I
still prefer "...and you think that's air that you're breathing!"

Cheers,

Stuart

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Oct/0018.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 04 October 2002 13:13
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: 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 11:48:16 UTC