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

Re: HTTP URIs and authority

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:37:35 +0100
Message-ID: <471F044F.3010608@musc.edu>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, W3C-TAG Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>

Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> The URI still identifies the poem, since I say it does
>>>> (presuming I've registered example.com).  The HTML pages are still
>>>> representations of the poem
>>> Yes. The actual HTML page is a representation-3's of the poem. But 
>>> then what I GET back from that HTML page is a representation-2 of a 
>>> representation-3 of the poem, not a representation-2 of the poem. 
>>> The poem itself is an abstraction, existing only in some Platonic 
>>> space of Pure Texts.
>> Exactly.
>>> Those aren't the kind of thing one can put at an http endpoint. If 
>>> you want to denote the *actual poem*, you should use 303 or #.
>> But here I disagree.
> I should have said, IF you are going to conform to httpRange-14, THEN 
> you should use 303 or #.
I am trying to convince people here that httpRange-14 is wrong and let's 
say no to 303.  The URI ambiguity is due to the confusion between 
representation-2 and 3, because many thinks that

(1) representation-2 = representation-3
or (2) representation-3 => representation-3 (the => means they can 
deduct the nature of 3 without opening the envelop of 2).

With this thought, how can we not have URI ambiguity?  Sure, we 
sometimes say "http://www.w3.org" is an HTML page, because human 
language is psychologically inspired and we share some basic 
understanding.   For machine, it is different.  If you write it in RDF, 
it will be wrong to say,

http://www.w3.org a awww:HtmlPage.

instead we should say

_:apage a awww:Representation;
             awww:htmlRepOf <http://www.w3.org>;
             a awww:HtmlPage.

We though there is ambiguity is due to our lack of vocabulary, not the 
URI has am ambiguity issue. 

An architecture should not build to catering people's mistake, right?


Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 08:38:13 UTC

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