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

Re: resources and URIs

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:54:30 -0400
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <01a901c34fdb$0c59cdf0$0902a8c0@Walden>

> OK, then in the sense I was understanding the word "on" here, its the 
> *representation* which is on the network, not the thing it is a 
> picture of.  But I realize now that others are using 'on the Web' to 
> mean what I would phrase as 'referred to somewhere on the Web'. The 
> problem for me that is not that this is meaningless, exactly, but 
> that it is useless. Being 'on the Web' in this sense isn't 
> well-defined, cannot be checked for accuracy, provides no 
> architectural or semantic content.  So OK, I don't give a damn 
> whether something is or is not 'on' the Web in this sense, and I see 
> no reason why I or anyone else should give a damn what the TAG group 
> thinks about it either, as it makes no difference to anything.

Pat, above you seem to use 'network' and 'Web' interchangeably;
is that intentional?

If you told me there was a random bag of representations available
on the Web, I would't give a damn.  But if you told me there would
be a set of representations over time which express the state of something
of interest, then I would.  How is the architecture supposed to indicate
that certain groups of representations (maybe over time) "hang" together
meaningfully?  Or is that not the job of architecture?

Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 18:55:05 UTC

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