W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2005

RE: making progress on httpRange-14 -- yet another suggestion

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:04:19 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206ECC@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'ht@inf.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org

Intension is apriori.  Identification is post hoc.  (No measurement -> no
identity). 
You can say something is logically true but to determine if it is
semantically true, 
you have to inspect the assertions.  You have to open the box and ask the
cat.

The answer is:  that's fine.  Lexically determined identity is ambiguous by
design 
or it would be impossible to use discrete terms over a continuous space.
Syntax 
is irrelevant to that fact.   If a URI is opaque, it cannot be a name in the

sense that inspection of a name should provide information about the
resource. 
If it is a name, then the fact of multiple representations means it can be 
ambiguous even if it can be inspected.  You have to open the box and ask the
cat.

There is no disagreement.  There are different operations being applied. 
If someone makes is axiomatic that an http-prepended URI infers an
operation, 
they mean it retrieves a represenation.  If they make it axiomatic that the
URI does not 
infer an operation, they mean it can never be a name, just a string.

These are ORTHOGONAL systems that use the same syntax.  You can't do BOTH 
simultaneously.

You cannot solve the problem of Schroedinger's Cat without opening the box, 
and even if you open the box, you have to ask the cat.   Resources get 
you exactly nothing.

len


From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
ht@inf.ed.ac.uk

So wrt the second of my proposed dimensions [1], Differentiation, that
there is disagreement is clear: some parties to this discussion (want
to) use ordinary http: URIs as names for concepts, abstractions,
properties, etc., i.e. things which are not information resources, and
other parties think this is a bad idea, that ordinary http: URIs
should be reserved for things you can retrieve.  Fine, we all knew
that.  Now, the hard part -- _why_ does this disagreement arise?
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:04:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:45 UTC