- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:49:17 -0400
- 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. http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform http://www.w3.org/2000/svg http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema 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 Namespaces"? ... > > > 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? Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 22:49:30 UTC