- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:50:56 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "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>
Pat Hayes wrote: > At 2:51 PM +0100 4/9/08, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >> Pat Hayes wrote: >>> At 8:58 AM +0100 4/9/08, Dan Brickley wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> I'm reading 'essential characteristics' as meaning, roughly, what in >>> OntoClean are called 'rigid properties' and what are often called >>> 'essential properties', meaning properties or aspects of a thing >>> which it has necessarily, i.e. which if it didn't have those it >>> would cease to be what it is. Among my essential characteristics, >>> for example, is my being human; or if you prefer, mammalian. And >>> although we have the word "human" in English, its impossible to >>> convey the/ property of being human/ in a message. >> But, what is the rigid property of being a document? > > Exactly that: i.e. being a document. I can recognize documents when I > see them. Does it say 200 or 303 or IR? >> How to convey "the property of being document"? > > You send the text of the document in such a way that it can be > displayed. Then I look at it and I/ see/ that it is a document. This > assumes of course that digitally encoded documents count as documents, > which they now do. 50 years ago, they probably would not have, but > cultural attitudes change towards such things. I will do a simple word substitution to use your argument for human. You send the text (image) of (the document => human) in such a way that it can be displayed. Then I look at it and I/ see/ that it is a (document =>human). This assumes of course that digitally encoded (documents=humans) count as (documents=>humans), which they now do. 50 years ago, they probably would not have, but cultural attitudes change towards such things. >> If you answer is "document is what is digitizable". Then, you have a >> subclass of document - digital document but not the document itself. > > Again, a cultural shift of perspective. In current usage, it seems > that 'paper document' is a subclass of 'document', the latter > including all kinds of digital entities which never make it to paper. But, then a URI never identifies the "document", yes? How do you know the nature behind "http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch", is it a document or, an electronic one, or a paper document, which I do have one, or a plastic one, which I don't but could nevertheless make one if I want to. Does its form matter to you? >> Then, there is a subclass of digital Human, which is digitizable too. > > digital human?? Ive never met one yet. Ask Newton about digitized document, he will give you the same answer. > Um.. don't confuse a digital object with a digital representation of > an object. Many non-digital things can have digital representations > (though not webarch:representations). Isn't it you who intend to confuse but not me? I tried to tell you that "http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch" denotes a digital object, but you can get a digital representation of it from the web. But it is you who insist to say that "http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch" is a digital representation, but not a digital object, right? >> The purpose of the web is not about how to digitize resource but to >> communicate resource through its digitized form. > > Do you mean, communicate the/ actual/ resource, or communicate/ > something about/ a resource? My earlier sentence is communicate our viewpoint of a resource (through its digital representation). Xiaoshu
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 14:53:29 UTC