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

Re: Towards a position of neutrality on issue httpRange-14 for AWWW (was RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource"))

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:40:29 +0100
Message-ID: <417929ED.5060407@hp.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, www-tag@w3.org

Hello Noah,

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>Stuart Williams writes:
>>>Why would a representation contain a reference
>>>... because the resource it represents refers to the 
>>>other resource.
>Do we have to reach consenus on this?
I know that we have visited it before... and the wording in WebArch is 
an outcome of that previous visit.

>I think it's often true, but not 
>always.  Might I not in builting a presentation include links that are 
>more properties of the reprsentation then the resource.
Hummm... is the presentation a/the resource?

>For example, you 
>could imagine a portal engine that presents all its content in XHTML and 
>includes a little banner at the bottom saying:  "This page brought to you 
>using XHTML.  For more information on XHTML see http://www.w3.org .)" (I'm 
>in an airplane without connectivity at the moment and don't actually have 
>handy the best URI for XHTML.)    I don't think that implies that the 
>reference to XHMTL documentation necessarily implies that the resource 
>being represented has such a reference to XHTML, even giving the benefit 
>of the doubt on the question of whether the web architecture has any 
>normative and fully general notion of what resources (as opposed to 
>representations) reference in the first place. 
Patrick offer an alternate suggestion in:

>How about
>   "When a representation of one resource contains a reference to
>    another resource with a URI, this constitutes a link between
>    the two resources".
Which has the interesting effect of at least concpetually 'integrating' 
over all the available representation... and 'promotes' references found 
in representations to being references between resources.

I think that you're asking "Can a representation make a reference 
without it entailing a link between the represented resource and 
whatever the link refers to?"

Earlier in the same message Patrick has said:

"Remember, a representation is also a resource, (often) distinct from 
the resource of which it is a representation."

And I haven't decide that I agree with that. For me a representation is 
some what ephmeral - something that passes on a wire between agents - 
and may get repeated (by caches/proxies) but is not a URI addressable 
thing in its own right.

Taking your portal example: you are viewing a portal page... and yes, I 
think that the portal page does indeed reference the XHTML 
documentation. The portal page is itself some composite entity build 
(either by reference or by (partial) inclusion) from multiple other 
resources. At our F2F i think there was some discussion of this from Roy 
in the context of whether we think of the represented resource as being 
just that thing that returned 'root' representation, or the closure 
involved in persuing all the other in-line links to things like images 
(themselves seaparate resources).

>In short, I wonder if we can get away without pursuing this particular 
>line of inquiry for now?
Don't know... one of the things that I think might be more intrinsic to 
there representation that the resource or namespace names and maybe 
style sheet names an whether we consider such references establish a 
link between the refering resource and a namespace or style sheet. I 
don't think I'd be desperately uncomfortable saying 'yes'.

>Noah Mendelsohn 
>IBM Corporation
>One Rogers Street
>Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 15:40:41 UTC

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