- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:02:39 -0400
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-tag@w3.org
Tim Berners-Lee writes: > The TAG uses (I hope) tag:representation only as a relationship > between a tag:InformationResource and a tag:Representation, the > latter being the class of (bits, metadata) pairs. It is not > transitive. Yes, indeed. So, that's at least two of us :-). > (I would say that its range and domain do not even overlap) Um, need we have that discussion just now? While I agree that in typical scenarios they don't, it's not clear to me that there aren't some edge case exceptions. Consider, for example, a network debugging mechanism for the Web, and assume that the debugger provides a Web interface. If you're debugging some particular GET request/response, then the representation in the response might itself be a useful resource, assigned a URI by the debugger. So, in cases like this and some others, I could imagine identifying (with URI) and returning through HTTP a tag:representation of the tag:InformationResource that is itself a tag:representation. Also, FWIW, I'd be a little happier calling the things we're discussing web:representation and web:InformationResource. Surely web:representations existed prior to the formation of the TAG? -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 22:03:01 UTC