- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:42:19 +0100
- To: "Rhys Lewis" <rhys@volantis.com>
- Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "Technical Architecture Group WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hello Rhys, > Hello Stuart, > > > No... I mean the intended (by the owner/baptiser/deployer of) referent > > of the URI - a webarch:Resource a.k.a a thing. > > Ok, in which case there is still clear blue water between us :) Splosh! > >> Really? It seems to me that you have to say something about the > >> http:resource that is identified by the racine. > > ^^^^^^^^^^ Hmmmm.... > > "identified" meaning "referred to" or "denoted by" ? > > or "identified" meaning "access using" ? > > > > I read the former... which I take to be the webarch:Resource ie. a > > thing referred to by the URI. > > > > But in this particular case, (information resources referred to by http > URIs) my description of the process says that they are the > same. To clarify, the webarch:resource referred to by the > racine is an information resource and hence is the http:resource. So why add yet another term to an already confused and confusing space? Won't webarch:Resource or plain Thing (and webarch:InformationResource if you have to distinquish) serve in this case? [Being a little picky, without having tried to poke the racine referenced resource we know very little about it. Unless it is a given in the scenario I don't know that it is an information resource (and even if it 303's or 404's or something other that 200's - I won't know from that alone whether or is not it's IR). I might expect it to be due to the context of the reference... but I don't know.] > Best wishes > Rhys Regards, Stuart --
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 10:45:21 UTC