- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:30:00 -0800
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, www-tag@w3.org
>Pat Hayes wrote: > >>>Can we please have some clarification here? >> >>Im as confused as you are. It seems to me that the whole story >>about 'information resources' is muddled. I don't know what an >>"essential characteristic" is. I was just responding to the ideas >>as best I can. >> >>I would prefer to simply say that some HTTP endpoints are >>considered to be resources, while others are not. > >I guess you mean "information resources" here; all things are >resources, still (in RDF/OWL speak)? No, I really did mean resources. If my URI is intended to denote, say, Jupiter, then Jupiter is a resource (though that terminology should change, IMO). But the thingie that catches my URI and redirects it to something else, emitting a 303 as it does so: THAT thing is not a resource at all, not even an information resource. Or at any rate, if it is one, then you can only refer to it with a different URI, because my URI denotes Jupiter. > >>The first kind should emit 200 responses, the second kind should not. > > Never mind trying to characterize >>in some metaphysical sense exactly what makes something be one of >>the first kind or not: we will never get this perfectly straight, >>so why bother trying. We can give some canonical examples, to wit, >>web pages; but we have to recognize that there can be others, and >>the category has to be open-ended as technology keeps changing it. >>However, its easier to find examples of the second kind, viz. any >>'resource' which cannot possibly be an HTTP endpoint. >[...] > >Erm, eh, huh, etc? do you mean "possibly be an HTTP endpoint of the >non-information-resource type"? Or I'm as confused as you are :) OK, I should have said, cannot possibly be an endpoint of any transfer protocol. I tend to treat the entire Web as made of HTTP and nothing else, which I know is a mistake, sorry. >you seem to be using "endpoint" in two ways here. Initially as >something like "http name", ie. used for all things that are named >with "http://". No, I mean it strictly in the sense of a network entity to which a URI can be transmitted and which can then emit a coded response. A piece of hard-, soft- or firmware physically connected to the Internet. The canonical example is a website. >Then at the end you talk about http-namable things that can't be >endpoints. This is the usage I prefer btw; since endpoint sounds >like a bit of technical network-engineer plumbing. Yes, as it should. This is all about network plumbing. Denotation is easy, its the plumbing that is so complicated. > >Aside: what do we make of data: URIs? I have no idea :-) I need to find out more about them. But this is all about http-range-14, right? That was the only reason for inventing the awful term 'information resource'. Pat >On the TAG webarch definition, they seem canonical examples of >information resources; but they lack many of the other >characteristics of HTTP-based information resources, ie. they are >endpoint-free, don't have conneg, etc. > >cheers, > >Dan -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 10:30:16 UTC