- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 29 Jul 2003 12:10:44 -0500
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 09:29, Tim Bray wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > Actually, no, there aren't any widely deployed > > web protocols for getting a representation of > > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# > > You can only GET a representation of > > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns > > I'm easily confused; I type it into a browser with the # and I get a > screenfull of information. Your browser strips off the # before it fetches a representation. I'm sure you knew that, but let's go spec-spelunking to find this concept... "10.2.1 200 OK The request has succeeded. The information returned with the response is dependent on the method used in the request, for example: GET an entity corresponding to the requested resource is sent in the response;" -- http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1 In this case, the requested resource is called http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns not http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# Take that URI as an example: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1 you can't GET a representation of that section of the document; you can only GET a representation of http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html and look inside to see what it means by #sec10.2.1 . > >>An information resource is something that is primarily information. > >>That's all (I think). -Tim > > > > I thought the way I made the distinction > > would appeal to you, since it's a distinction > > that's grounded in running code and bits on the wire. > > Good point, but unfortunately I just don't think the distinction is very > meaningful. It seems clear that "The set of all URIs for which no > reprsentations can be provided, in principle" is empty. Again, that's not what I suggested. For the *3rd* time, the text I'm suggesting is: When Dan found http://weather.example.com/oaxaca in the magazine, he inferred that it was *on the Web*; that is, it has a representation available, barring network failures, access policies, and such. While URIs can, in general, be used to refer to any sort of resource, the case of an *information resource*, that is, one for which Web protocols provide representations, is particularly relevant to the structure of the Web: a *link* is the use of a URI in the representation of an information resource refer to another resource. The large-scale effect of the use of these links is a shared information space. The value of the Web grows exponentially as a function of the number of linked resources (the "network effect"). > On the other hand, I think that it's obvious that > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/02/09/-big/Teddy.jpg is a > different kind of thing than urn:isbn:131-14-14-355515 or a URI > purporting to represent a person. That, I thought, was what we were > trying to capture, TimBL's distinction between a person and a picture of > a person. And it's independent of whether representations are available. I guess we just have different concepts in mind. Re-reading what you suggested Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:53:52 -0700, I can see some appeal to it, and nothing I strongly object to. I think I've said my piece. I think I'll watch for input from others now. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 13:10:45 UTC