Right to serve new Content-Type (Was: Conforming is such sweet sorrow (was: Re: The meaning of "representation" (was: HTTP URIs and authority))

On 2007-11 -24, at 21:12, Pat Hayes wrote:

> ...
>
>>> ... 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."
>>>
>>
>> Xiaoshu is writing about a completely different architecture, which  
>> has no concept of Information Resource.
>> <<http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch>http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch 
>> > a :MisguidedDocument.
>>
>> Pat is pushing bounds and trying to test his and our understanding  
>> of the AWWW.
>> <<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes 
>> "> a  :FalseDocument.
>
> :-) Well, I wrote that a while back, and I'd like to revise it in  
> the light of HTTP-Range-14, but I can't. Ironically, now that I see  
> the logic (did I say that??) behind the HTTP-Range-14 decision, and  
> now that I try to be a good citizen, I run into practical problems  
> of conforming to TAG decisions. How can I arrange for the  
> appropriate redirection response to be given? The TAG gives me  
> helpful advice, with a variety of scripts to use, but all of these  
> require me to modify the special file ".htaccess". And I'm not  
> allowed to do that: I don't have the permissions. Moreover, my  
> systems administrator, who is under most conditions the most helpful  
> and accommodating man, flatly refuses to give me or anyone else  
> write permissions for that file, apparently because to allow access  
> to that file would immediately make our firewall protections  
> compromised to hacker attacks. So I can't possibly follow the TAG  
> advice, and cannot conform to HTTP-Range-14. I feel as though I am  
> in the position of being told that I must use radioactive polonium,  
> but am also told that to have this would be so dangerous that I  
> cannot possibly have it.
>
> I wonder if others are in a similar bind?

You've hit it.  Web servers are designed to serve the web pre-303,  
when no-one really needs to publish a 303 point.  there are ways, of  
course, one could do it, by having a special file type (pat.303) which  
just contained the URI to redirect to.   But web servers are set up to  
serve documents, not people.

The beauty of the hash system is that it just requires serving  
documents.
It builds the web of things on top of and using the web of documents.

The 303 system was brought for people who felt the "#" character in a  
URI was too ugly.  I sympathize with that.  But I'd note that socially  
we never can just introduce a 'kinase' it always has to be 'kinase as  
defined in ...' to have any trustworthiness, usefulness, etc.  So for  
those reasons one can't escape level-breaking connection to the  
document layer.

So I suggest you change the file to make all those claims about   
pat.rdf#PH or something.
And publish that RDF file (please?  I'll FOAF you :-)
Then you only have to persuade the IHMC webmaster or ISP in general to  
serve it with the right Content-Type.

The rights of a server user to publish in any standard and maybe even  
non-standard Content-types
has been an issue with deployment of things like speech grammars etc  
as well.
I have an action from somewhere to raise it as a potential TAG issue.
It is hereby raised.

Tim

> Pat
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Sunday, 25 November 2007 19:47:33 UTC