W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

[httpRange-14] empiricism was Re: resources and URIs

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:49:17 -0400
Message-ID: <050a01c34c0e$09ae5920$b6f5d3ce@svhs.local>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 18:20, pat hayes wrote:
> > Gentlemen, I would like to ask you to please clarify the meaning of
> > the terms 'resource' and 'representation' in
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/.
> It seems to me that your request is pretty much a request
> to resolve the httpRange-14 issue.
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#httpRange-14

Yup. Since we are talking about the Web as it currently exists, I wonder if
we can look at some URIs and see what resources they identify.


Now we have 3 URIs created by the W3C over the course of 3 years. The
representations obtained on dereferencing the URIs state that these are
intended to be "XML Namespaces"

Is it reasonable to say that the resources identified by these URIs are "XML

> >  Other examples abound,
> > eghttp://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/ngc1068/index.html  is in
> > clearly about a galaxy containing a supermassive black hole, which is
> > also not something one would expect to find as part of an networked
> > information system, given the likely physical constraints on network
> > architecture.
> I think that particular identifier refers to a document about
> a galaxy, not the galaxy itself; if you want to refer to
> the galaxy itself, you should use a URI with a # in it.
> [folks with other opinions on httpRange-14 disagree,
> I believe.]

I understand this position, you are saying that all HTTP URIs identify
*documents*, that is to say all resources which are directly 'on the web'
and who are identified by HTTP URIs are documents.

How do I reconcile this position with the empirical evidence that some URIs
identify resources whose representations claim that they are XML Namespaces?
I just can't reconcile this by accepting that an 'XML Namespace' is a type
of 'document'. Do you think that the XML Namespaces REC ought be modified to
deprecate namespace names which are not URI references? Do you believe the
Web Architecture ought be documented based on its empirical existence or
based on a grander design?

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 22:49:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC