- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:19:09 -0400
- To: hhalpin@ibiblio.org
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Henry, > > 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 from http://jonathan.borden.name/ from representing *me*. That said, what is the fundamental difference between that and http://www.jonathanborden-md.com/jonathan-borden-cv.htm ?? 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. Jonathan
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2005 18:19:18 UTC