RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:20 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on
> httpRange-14)
> 
> 
> I don't accept this. I suspect that 99.9 % of folks who type
> 
> www.travelocity.com
> 
> are thinking about booking an airline ticket (or hotel room 
> etc.) 

I used the term "bag of bits" inappropriately, I guess. I (ahem, considering
my roles in the W3C) would be the last to argue that a URI must identify a
static page rather than a dynamic application or web service.  A better name
for a "resource that has a direct representation of The Thing Itself, be it
text, graphics, service, application, auction, or something we can't yet
imagine" than "bag of bits" is humbly solicited :-)  My point is (to move
beyond the car to another hoary example) that the Mona Lisa is Not On The
Web, no matter how many sites offer metadata about the painting, images of
the painting, assertions about the metadata or images, etc.
Travelocity.com is quite definitely On the Web, no mattern how many
printouts of its iteneraries litter the airport.

I don't claim that this distinction has any relevance for the Web
Architecture document, or that the TAG should pursue it, but just curious
why the idea of cutting the Gordian Knot by having a new URI scheme for
abstract/not-on-web resources (e.g. namespaces, back before RDDL was
conceived anyway) never gets anywhere.

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 00:01:41 UTC