W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:07:24 +0100
Message-ID: <417387CC.8030702@hp.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, www-tag@w3.org

Mark Baker wrote:

>On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:27:35AM -0400, Harry Halpin wrote:
>>If you have my medical record and take it from a piece of
>>paper and put in into some database, then general an XML file from that 
>>database that flies across the Web, that XML file is *my medical record*
>>in the same sense that the original paper version is and not *a 
>>representation of my medical record*. In fact, the word *representation
>>of my medical record* doesn't even make much sense, does it?  
>I believe it does.  If you subsequently (to the above taking place) paid
>a visit to your doctor and she wrote a note in your record, the XML
>document wouldn't be updated.  This is because the data crossed a trust
>boundary when it was translated into XML, just as it would if you made a
>photocopy of it.  Therefore it's not your medical record, but just a
>representation of it at some point in time.
>Consider that if I'm provided two URIs, one which identifies "an XML
>representation of my medical record at time T" (where T is fixed) and
>the other which identifies "an XML representation of my current medical
>record", then if I invoke GET on each at time T, I get two equivalent
>representations back.
>I suggest that what makes those two resources different is an "essential
>characteristic", and because it isn't reflected in the messages,

Small point... but that would depend on whether you regarded the request 
URI (or URI returned in header fields) part of any of the messages 

> then,
>depending how you look at it, either neither of those resources are
>"information resources", or just one of them is (take your pick).  But
>both cannot be.
>I continue to maintain that "information resource" is a pointless
>Hmm, I bet there's a far shorter way of saying all that, like in a
>sentence or two, but it's not coming to me.  Sorry.
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 09:07:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:06 UTC