Re: resources and URIs

In current usage, "portray" and "represent" are synonyms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=portray
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=represent

Going back, to language roots:

Portray = drag forth
Represent = exist in-front-of (again)
Express = squeeze out
Message = that which is sent
Resource = that which rises (again)
Inform = fashion

It seems fair to say that representations are expressions of resources.

To say that something "gives information" implies that it informs, which
is only true if something (you?) changes shape as the result.

I don't get "representation is expression of message". I'd say it *is*
the message, esp. if it has to be sent to appear before you.

Anyway, there's another model.  Arguably an older one.

Walden
"Armchair Etymologist"


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>; <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: resources and URIs


> 
> 
> On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 15:43 US/Eastern, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 
> >> representation of = something which portrays a resource; most often
> >> in the arch doc a bag of bits with a MIME type and other metadata,
> >
> > That is: an expression in some identified language, a message with
> > meaning.
> 
> Below you never mention the model which I assume.
> A representation is not something which "portrays".
> "portray" is to give information *about*.
> 
> A representation conveys information. Period.
> "About" is an unnecessary and vague term we do not need in the 
> architecture.
> A representation is the expression of a message, thenn the thing 
> identified by the URI is the message,
> for that is what we expect to get an expression of when we dereference 
> the URI.
> 
> We require much more than that the representation be *about* the same 
> thing.
> 
> >  relationship between the message and its expression in Bits + MIME 
> > Type == bits (raw information) + language
> > identifier (indicating, by reference, the syntax and semantics of the
> > language).  Sounds good.   In practice there's a kind of language
> > layering and combining going on, with markup languages and header
> > fields, but that can probably be ignored at this distance.
> >
> > But the important question is this: what is this "portrays"
> > relationship between the resource and the representation.
> 
> If there is a "portrays" relationship, then it is between the car and 
> the (bits+meta).
> This is not very interesting for the architecture.
> What does "Khubla Khan" portray? It is not easy to say, but it is not 
> relevant either
> so it doesn't matter.
> 
> As a web user. when I quote you
> http://www.galegroup.com/free_resources/poets/poems/kublakhan.htm
> What do I expect of this URI when I dereference it?
> 
> 1. - That it is always something *about* stately pleasure domes?
> 2. - That it is always the poem "Khubla Khan"?
> 3. - That it is always a poem "Khubla Khan", as published in the 
> Thompson/Gale collection?
> 4. - That it is always a particular set of bits?
> 
> The answer is  2 or 3.  That is what we expect to be invariant for the 
> URI.
> That is the basis on which I make hypertext links.
> That is the basis upon which URIs are used.
> 
> That is why we say the URI identifies or denotes the poem.
> 
> 
> What something "portrays" is *not* the important question for the 
> architecture document.
> 
> I think that the word "representation"might have been historically 
> unfortunate as it suggests "portrayal" (or a subject) rather than 
> expression (of a message).
> 
> Tim
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 21:39:12 UTC