Re: Subgroup to handle semantics of HTTP etc?

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> The point that I want to stress is: from a particular representation, 
>> you can only know *a part* of what the URI identifies and we cannot 
>> tell how big the part is from its URI or its network response code.
>> This, in my opinion, makes the distinction between IR and non-IR 
>> pointless.
> The point is that it partitions resources into two kinds: 
> message-conveyable resources, and other resources. And it establishes 
> an axiom, that a 200 response means we have a message-conveyable 
> resource.
Define conveyable?  We have to understand, HTTP protocol, in essence, is 
just a service.  In other words, you ask a server a question, it 
responds to you in certain way.  Even if the server tells you that it 
knows nothing about the resource you asked, it is still a message, isn't 
it?  Whether something is message-conveyable in a system is arbitrary.
> Without this axiom, it is not clear wether the URI of my homepage 
> identifies just a document, or wether it can be also used to identify 
> a person. This uncertainty exists for almost every web page. The axiom 
> removes any doubt: The answer is 200, therefore the URI identifies 
> something message-conveyable, therefore it cannot be a person, 
> therefore it must identify just the document.
Nope, there is always something that is un-identifiable unless you are 
saying the bit-stream flying on the wire *is* your homepage (see my 
discussion with Stuart), then let me ask you how do you distinguish the 
flying bit-stream from your homepage? 



Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 17:38:41 UTC