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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:54:47 +0100
Message-ID: <47FBA357.50504@musc.edu>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>

> Wrt to that resolution... a 303 response means *nothing*... if you happen to follow the redirection and find something useful about the thing you originally inquired of, that you trust and are prepared to stick in your reasoning engine, then you win - if not, of itself, the redirection has told you nothing/means nothing.
> 200 tells you that the response convey as representation of the (state of?) referenced thing.
If this is what TAG accepts, i..e, 200=*representation of* as oppose to 
"resource of".  I have no problem and would be happy with it.  My 
perception is that TAG is recommending either explicitly or implicitly 
the latter viewpoint. 
> At present I do not hear TAG members asking that that the issue be reopened (and it would take a majority vote of the TAG to do so).
> In addition the TAG has recently invested considerable time commenting and helping SWEO conclude its "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" [3] Note which is specifically intended to provide practical guidance to people minting/deloy URIs for use on the Semantic Web in adherance with the TAG's resolution on httpRange-14.
> httpRedirections-57 [4] is a different issue. from [5]:
If 200="representation of", this makes the argument for 
httpRedirections-57 moot because there is no need to "representation of" 
"representation of".  Or "description of" "description of". 
>> The issue is *very serious* so is its long term consequence.
> Proof by assertion is not going to work.
See last.  This is not proof by assertion, I have argued it for quite a 
while, just be tired of repeating myself.
> Please state as briefly as you can what those consequences are and why they follow for the TAGs httpRange-14 resolution - one or two short paragraphs. Or better still provide a reference to a pre-existing compact description that you feel we have failed to consider.
The httpRange-14 is based on the definition of IR.  The LINK proposal is 
trying to avoid answering it.  But they cannot escape the dead trap that 
the TAG sets.  For instance, if we take Mark's RFC, and say providing a 
copyright LINK.  Is copy-right an information resource or not?  Or is a 
transformation-sheet an IR? If so, by which criteria?

If the answer is that it doesn't matter, i.e., there is no one to 
supervise it. Then, why do we need httpRange-14 at the first place and 
then why 303 when we can 200?

The httpRedirection-57 is caused by httpRange-14. But neither it helps 
to make httpRange-14 clear nor does it escapes from httpRange-14.  Then, 
what is the purpose of httpRange-14?  To create issues and confusions? 

If this is not considered a serious problem, what it is? 

But if I did misunderstood TAG's view that 200="representation of", then 
I am HAPPY because there is never a need for 303 except for its original 
purpose defined in HTTP - which is used for after-post-redirect. 

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 16:55:36 UTC

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