Re: now:// (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14)

> Roy, nobody disputes that you know a lot about HTTP.  The concern is
> that you insert yourself into discussions on identifiers in a way that
> could confuse people into thinking that you are equally expert on
> identifiers.

Heh, that's amusing.

> Identifiers are irrelevant to HTTP, since all HTTP requires is location.

I suppose you also believe that HTTP is only used to access "http"
identified resources.

> Since you are not an XML guy or an RDF guy, I would expect you to defer
> a tiny bit more to people who actually use URIs to *identify* things
> rather than just *locate* them.

I'll defer to people who know what they are talking about, done the 
research, and analyzed the problem.  I've done that several times over
the years, in public, and I can assure you that there is no problem if
the correct definition of resource is used.

The current "confusion" is being propagated by people who have done none
of the above.  Instead, they leapt to a conclusion and then ran around
insisting that nobody could do what they are already doing with
identifiers.  That's bunk.  It is based on a false premise: that the
identifier implies an action.

> As I said to you some time ago on this list:
> Joshua Allen wrote:
> (
> : REST doesn't even deal with the problem, because
> : the only thing that anyone ever actually deals with is a
> : representations.  The actual "resource" in REST is a theoretical figment
> : of someone's imagination, and requires absolutely no consensus to have
> : HTTP work.  You can declare that your http: URL points to a beach until
> : you are blue in the face, and I can declare that it points to a "web
> : page", and none of it will matter -- the web page still works.

That's partly correct.  REST was defined in such a way that demonstrates
there is no problem in not knowing the nature of the resource, since
the Web doesn't transfer the resource.  It doesn't ignore the potential
for a problem, nor does it prevent metadata sources like RDF from
defining the nature of the resource in an unambiguous manner.

> I even gave you another opportunity to disagree publicly if you feel
> that http: URLs are meaningful identifiers:
> Joshua Allen wrote:
> (
> : This is a bit misleading.  The "resource" that HTTP talks about is
> : purely imaginary.
> : HTTP only ever deals with representations, messages, the results of
> : method invocations.  It is fine to say that HTTP distinguishes between
> : those various things that it actually deals with.  But HTTP ignores the
> : resources, and it's a bit of a stretch to say that HTTP has any advice
> : to offer in this regards.
> : HTTP never "solved" this problem.  It simply ignored it.

Umm, what part of that diatribe implies that http URI are not meaningful
identifiers?  HTTP/1.1 solved the problem of differentiating between
resources (what is identified) and representations (what is the result
of GET).  It did not ignore it.  There is no problem now in HTTP, and
there would be no problem in RDF, XML, or any other protocol that
uses identifiers once they adopt the same distinction as is present
in the Internet standards.  It would never have been a problem were
it not for the wall that was created between a pay-to-play consortium
and the individuals who contribute to the IETF.


Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 18:13:41 UTC