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

Re: Information resources

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>
Message-Id: <1059498644.16953.1038.camel@dirk.dm93.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

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