W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2007

RE: Some TAG review of "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"

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>
Message-ID: <13A6D5AD15574C9CBD1311AF6A27F5F4@Marc>

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:


1 October 2007 I change my mind, and serve my CV from


and the picture from 


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.


[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


[3] http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 10:36:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:18 UTC