- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:58:31 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Hi Pat, Pat Hayes wrote: > At 7:52 PM +0100 4/8/08, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >> Pat Hayes wrote: >>> At 5:54 PM +0100 4/8/08, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >>>> Stuart, >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Gentlemen, please both of you speak very slowly and carefully at >>> this point, as a precise understanding here is critical. >>> >>> Stuart, did you mean that the response conveys/ a/ representation/ >>> in the webarch sense/ of the referenced thing? It would be helpful >>> if every time the word 'represent' and its cognates are used in this >>> very special sense, such usage were explicitly flagged, as it can >>> very quickly lead to incomprehension when understood more broadly >>> (as it is almost everywhere else in the English-speaking world.) >>> >>> (Xiaoshu: from which it follows that in this case, the referenced >>> thing in question must be something that/ has/ a >>> webarch-representation; so, in this case, it/ cannot/ be some other >>> kind of thing that cannot, by virtue of its very nature, have such a >>> (webarch-)representation; so, to refer to such things - such, as we >>> now might say,/ non-information resource things/ - requires >>> something other than a 200 response. Thus goes the http-range-14 >>> logic, as I understand it. Note that in order to follow this, all we >>> need to know is that there are things which (a) cannot have a >>> representation in the webarch sense but (b) that we might wish to >>> refer to with a URI. (aside: perhaps 'http(s) URI' was meant here, rather than just 'URI'?) >>> Their exact nature need not be specified, but I believe that the >>> language of 'information resource' boils down to an attempt to >>> characterize this category of [/things that cannot be >>> webarch-represented by a byte stream/]. And, centrally important, >>> not having a representation in the webarch sense does/ not/ mean not >>> having any kind of representation, being unrepresentable, or not >>> being describable. The webarch sense of 'representation' is very >>> specialized and narrow.) >> Pat, as I have detailed argued here >> http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch. There can have only one >> consistent interpretation, that is: there is no so-called >> "information resource". > > The key issue is not what is an information resource, but what isn't. > So, in your document you ask, what makes the claim "A person is not an > information resource" true? And it seems to me that this at least has > a clear answer: because a person is/ not/ something whose essential > characteristics can be conveyed in a message. I don't know what 'essential characteristics' are. Really. What are the (erm...) characteristics of the 'essential characteristics' of some [named type of] thing? Who gets to decide? Are you saying that this is actually clear, or 'clear within the world of the http-range-14 resolution'? cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 07:59:11 UTC