Re: The meaning of "representation"

I have finished the writing about the subject. The URI is

In short, I think the current AWWW document should be modified to 
emphasize the following two points:

(1) The abstract nature of "resource" with regard to the web.
(2) The role of URI as an interface, in addition to a name, for the web
I think the failure to recognize the above two points are the reasons 
for the faulty impression of URI's ambiguity and debate about 
"information resource".  As for the latter, I think httpRange-14 
answered a wrong question because 200 should indicate an informational 
*URI* but not an information *resource*.


Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> Mikael Nilsson wrote:
>> Now, we're seeing a spectrum of views on what a "representation" in HTTP
>> sense might be.
>> >From Xiaoshu's "I think there is no inherent relationship between a 
>> representation and resource, let along
>> isomorphic."
>> ... to Pat's "But yes, I'm assuming that webarch:representation is 
>> something like taking an imprint from a platen. It has to in some 
>> sense be a 'faithful' representation of 'all' of the resource."
>> Both of the above cannot be true, and allowing both interpretation hurts
>> web architecture. The HTTP spec provides no real guidance.
>> I propose that the TAG provides the community with a single, consistent
>> view on this issue: "What is the relationship between a
>> http:representation and a webarch:resource"?
> Yes, I sincerely wish TAG would do this.  In addition I think TAG 
> should also, as Pat proposed before, make an attempt to clarify the 
> meaning of a few key words, such as "identify, denote, resource, 
> thing, representation" etc.,
> I am trying to put down my thought on the subject, once I did, I will 
> post the URI as a source of argument.
> Regards,
> Xiaoshu

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 10:10:16 UTC