W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: reference needed - w3.org versioned documents

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:46:12 -0700
Message-ID: <47F55024.8020408@oracle.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>

Hi Noah:
You said ...

If the resource is a non-information resource then the "representation" 
(and I understand some would prefer a different term for this case) is 
necessarily more partial and indirect.  E.g., if I am the resource, the 
representation might be a picture of me, etc.

Are you saying that every non-information resource (thing) has a single representation?
My guess would be several representations.

At a minimum there would be the representation and some metadata.  But perhaps
you don't consider metadata as a representation.


noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>Joanthan Rees writes:
>>Just the opposite. I'm saying the URI "owner" can and should make 
>>useful statements about the named resource, but generally doesn't, 
>>and without these useful statements *I* can't make useful statements 
>>about what's named because I don't know what's named. I can do as 
>>many GETs as I like, and I still won't know anything. The W3C's 
>>statements about its TR URIs qualify as useful statements, but for 
>>the undated URI I don't think they go far enough to let the the URI 
>>be a good citizen of the semantic web.
>Let's accept what you say above as true.  In that case do you believe 
>there is there significant value in sticking to the TAG's position on 
>httpRange14?  You're making the case that even with the existing 
>restriction that status code 200 is only for "information resources", a 
>typical Semantic Web application will still pretty much be depending for 
>success on the URI owner publishing further information about the 
>resource.  If that's the case, then why the fuss about 200?  If the owner 
>has to publish more information anyway, then why overload 200?  Why not 
>rely on that additional information to disambiguate things like info vs. 
>non-info resources.  In particular, why don't we allow 200 for pretty much 
>any resource, with the understanding that: 
>* If the resource is represented using only one media type, and if the 
>state of the resource is time invariant, then the representation you get 
>with 200 should be pretty much the whole state of the resource.
>* If the resource is time varying but otherwise as above, then the 
>representation should be of its "current" state.
>* If the resource is generic, for example, a press release available in 
>French, Greek, English and Chinese, then the representation will typically 
>be partial (as I prefer to view it), in the sense that it is giving you 
>only one of the known translations.
>* If the resource is a non-information resource then the "representation" 
>(and I understand some would prefer a different term for this case) is 
>necessarily more partial and indirect.  E.g., if I am the resource, the 
>representation might be a picture of me, etc.
>You would, of course, not be able to tell which case you were dealing with 
>unless the URI owner published additional information.  Is there then 
>confusion in case 4 about statements made about "me" vs. statements made 
>about the "picture of me"?  Well, you've already said that if the resource 
>itself were the picture, we wouldn't know that it was unless the URI owner 
>published additional information.  That being the case, why don't use that 
>same answer here:  the owner of the URI should publish information saying 
>"this resource is a picture (and therefore, BTW, an information resource)" 
>or "this resource is a person, and the representations you're getting are 
>in general pictures of the person".
>Now, if the statement you made above is in fact not true, then I can see 
>why the httpRange decision has value.  Then it might be the case that by 
>merely publishing with 200 the resource owner has given you the 
>information necessary for it to usefully participate in the Semantic Web, 
>and that's valuable.  Since you've pretty much asserted that's not the 
>case, then is there still value in the 200 rule?  Thank you.
>Noah Mendelsohn 
>IBM Corporation
>One Rogers Street
>Cambridge, MA 02142

All the best, Ashok
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 21:47:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:20 UTC