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

[httpRange-14] a thought experiment was: Re: making progress on httpRange-14 -- yet another suggestion

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:19:09 -0400
Message-Id: <32275056cfdf54e67343b8c76b10c18d@openhealth.org>
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
To: hhalpin@ibiblio.org

> I would have to agree with Roy on some level - yes, it's obvious Tim
> Bray's blog "ongoing" is on some level *part* of Tim Bray. However, I
> would apply the old B.C. Smith test of representation/implementation. 
> X is
> a representation of Y  Tim Bray (not Tim Bray) if you blow up X, Y is
> still there. X is an implementation of Y if you blow up X, Y stops
> existing. Thus, Tim Bray is *not* is blog, although they may be quite
> intimate at times, because if I "blow up" his blog by taking his domain
> away, Tim Bray will keep on living. Now, there are esoteric arguments
> involving cyborgs, and
> at some point perhaps we'll *all* be connected on some level to the Web
> all the time, but I think that this representation/implementation
> information/non-information resource distinction is still useful and
> possibly confusing to machines using the SemWeb.

Well you know that this argument is not that esoteric nor futuristic. I 
can say with some authority that it is entirely possible to implant 
electrodes using current and in the near future technologies which 
measure brain function (and heart as well).

It is daily neurosurgical practice to implant brain stimulating 
electrodes to treat conditions such as Parkinson's disease and severe 
pain conditions and there are *human* clinical studies being conducted 
on implanting electrode grids to restore sight to the blind.

These devices typically contain an implanted battery pack (just like a 
pacemaker) which are (currently) controlled via an external device. 
Such devices already contain microprocessors and there is nothing in 
principle to prevent one from creating an HTTP interface. With the 
current state of wireless networking there is nothing in principle from 
preventing such devices from *actually* being placed _on the Web_ 
(aside from the obvious security concerns!).

As such what is to prevent something from a live video feed emanating 
http://jonathan.borden.name/  from representing *me*.

That said, what is the fundamental difference between that and



The above URI when resolved returns a representation of my CV, but my 
CV is a representation of *me* so how does this convention reduce any 
ambiguity? If you say that my CV is not a represention of me, then I am 
just stumped.

The "blow up" test. I can't accept this. If you remove the name of a 
thing, you don't blow up the "thing" just as if I have an abstract 
document e.g. Shakespear's "Hamlet" and I were to blow up 
http://example.org/shakes/hamelet.htm --- I don't actually "blow up" 
the work: Hamlet.

Received on Saturday, 7 May 2005 18:19:18 UTC

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