RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14

Wow.  This issue is so intense that a simple "wonderful" message is not
construed as being supportive.

Thanks stuart. Graham, I am agreeing with your idea.

And yes, there is a running joke in the TAG about the relationship of the
Matrix and various quotes to the web/Resources/Representations/URIs.  There
are certainly variations as well, "... and you think that's resources that
you are GETting?" :-)

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Williams, Stuart
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:48 AM
> To: 'Graham Klyne'; David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: 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 12:41:43 UTC