- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:31:42 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, Susie Stephens <susie.stephens@gmail.com>
> From: Pat Hayes > [ . . . ] I'd prefer to say that what makes > something an 'information resource' is not how it can be > xx:represented - which is a can of worms - but just that it is the > kind of thing that emits 200 codes alongside bitstrings (which we can > call 'representations' if you like . . . ) A big +1 from me, of course. Whether it can emit 200 reponses with "representations" is all that is relevant to Web architecture. BTW, regarding the concern that Stuart mentioned as one of the reasons why the current definition of "information resource" ended up the way it did: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Sep/0185.html [[ The thing that I recall about the "essentail characteristics being conveyable in a message" definition was that it was about the *potential* of such conveyance rather that the actuality of it. ]] This concern can be addressed by being clear that defining "information resource" as a thing that *can* emit 200 codes with bitstrings does not guarantee that it *will* emit such when you prod it. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 18:32:16 UTC