Re: ISSUE-57: The use of HTTP Redirection

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> There's a lot of discussion currently about the distinction between 
> IRs and non-IRs. Is it about “essential characteristics conveyable in 
> a message”, about “can we attach an HTTP endpoint to it”, about 
> “document-ness”?
>
> To me, this all misses the point. Even if we can nail down objective 
> criteria to distinguish these buggers, this will *still* not tell us 
> if we have to serve them up using 303/hash or 200.
I think to focus on what is information resource and what is not missed 
the whole point of httpRange-14.  We use the term IR vs. non-IR to help 
the discussion of the topic because that is where causes the ambiguity.  
But the point of httpRange-14 is not to distinguish which resource is IR 
and which is not.  It is about making our statements unambiguous. 

A machine couldn't careless if a URI identifies an IR or a non-IR.  And 
there is no reason for a machine NOT to believe that a person shouldn't 
have a width/height/background or stylesheet or a document can not have 
spouse and children. 

In other words, I can think a person to be an information resource. If 
you don't agree then I cannot communicate with you.  But for me and for 
people who agrees with my view, we should still get along fine even if 
we didn't 303 or # redirect our personal URI.

So, the issue is not about what is information resource and what is 
not.  It is about how we can convey our message in a way that minimize 
confusion.    The point of httpRange-14 is to tell us that there is a 
potential cause for making ambiguous statements and possible way to 
avoid it.

That's my two cents...

Xiaoshu Wang

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 13:42:46 UTC