RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource")

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Tim Berners-Lee
> Sent: 20 October, 2004 21:31
> To: Jon Hanna
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information 
> resource")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 18, 2004, at 21:26, Jon Hanna wrote:
> >
> >> Tim: The web works when person (a) publishes a picture of a dog,
> >> person (b)
> >> bookmarks it, mails the URI to person (c) assuming that 
> they will see
> >> more or less the same picture, not the weight of the dog.
> >>
> >> That is why, while the dog is closely related to the picture,
> >> it is not
> >> what is identified, in the web architecture, by the URI.
> >
> > Jon: This example already breaks if person (b) says something about 
> > the wording
> > in a textual representation and person (c) sees a different language
> > version.
> 
> On the contrary, the web worked.  The information resource was
> an announcement that the dog has had puppies.  The person (a),
> delighted, sends person (b) the URI, and the person (b) gets
> a different language version, conveying the same meaning.
> 
> What was constant between the two uses of the URI?
> The meaning of the message: that the doc has had puppies.
> That is why we need the concept of the Information Resource.
> When two representations are of the same Information Resource,
> they should convey the same information.
> 
> Both people get the message, each person updates their worldview
> in the same way. [eliminated interpretations in which the dog did not 
> have
> puppies]

Agreed.  Insofar as the expected behavior of the web in the above
case and the utility (though not necessarily necessity) of agreement
about what is or is not an information resource and the fact that
all of an information resource can be provided in a representation.

(I think it's useful to point out where my and Tim's models intersect ;-)

> (Information resources can be generic, or specific, when it comes
> to version, language, and content-type.
> http://www.w3.org/DesigIssues/Generic explains this, in 1996 langauge)
> 
> The web arch document needs to be able to talk about these things.

I think that's one of the points of debate, to what degree a class
of information resources is essential (or not) to the fundamental
web architecture (versus particular uses of that web archtecture).

Regards,

Patrick


> > Regards,
> > Jon Hanna
> > <http://www.selkieweb.com/>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 10:05:28 UTC