- From: Marc de Graauw <marc@marcdegraauw.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:36:06 +0200
- To: "'Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)'" <dbooth@hp.com>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "'Technical Architecture Group WG'" <www-tag@w3.org>
David Booth: | > 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. This raises a question for me. Suppose I have no clue about webdesign, and serve a picture of me from: http://www.marcdegraauw.com/file001/ 1 October 2007 I change my mind, and serve my CV from http://www.marcdegraauw.com/file001/ and the picture from http://www.marcdegraauw.com/file002/ What would you now say: [1] http://www.marcdegraauw.com/file001/ is an IR which denoted Marc's picture before 1 October 2007 and Marc's CV after 1 October 2007. Or: [2] Marc, you have no clue about web design, you served a different IR before and after 1 October 2007, go read Tim Bernes-Lee's "Cool URI's don't change" [3] and mend your ways. I always assumed IR was intended as a sort of refined notion of "document" in [3], and I would thus say [2]. Webarch suggests as much. I think saying [1] may be coherent, but then we still need some notion of "concept" to replace "IR" in [2]. Computers can't do much with it, but for people it is often extremely easy to distinguish them, and sentences such as [2] are pretty essential to (improving) the Web. Marc de Graauw http://www.marcdegraauw.com [3] http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 10:36:02 UTC