RE: Uniform access to descriptions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang []
> Sent: 09 April 2008 15:22
> To: Pat Hayes
> Cc: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol); Jonathan Rees;
> WG; Phil Archer
> Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions
> Pat Hayes wrote:
> > At 11:01 AM +0100 4/9/08, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> >> Pat Hayes wrote:
> >>> At 10:28 PM +0100 4/8/08, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> >>>> Pat Hayes wrote:
> >>>>


> >> Let's me use this analogy, when you received a mail (or email, such
> >> as this), do you judge its content by *how* it is delivered to you? I
> >> don't know about you, but I don't.
> >
> > Neither do I. Did I say anything to suggest otherwise? But if someone
> > types hypertext which says "For more information, see <a
> > href="">this</a>. " then I usually take it that
> > the writer is/ referring to/ the web page at the end of the link.
> > Don't you? And that is all that http-range-14 says.
> Yes, I do too.  But do you re-evaluate what you have read about the
> original post where the <a> is put in by checking if the link comes back
> via a 200 or 303 after you click the link.  I don't, would you?

We'll actually, being observant I would actually notice if the address in the browser address bar differed from the on that I had followed (and for that matter - even before clicking the link, these days I'd be checking that the link target was in some way consistent with the link text... lest I find myself updating bank access details on some bank draining scam web site.)

So yes... these days, with an air of skeptism the manner in which I receive a message is significant wrt to the way I evaluate it. And in reality I suspect it is for you, otherwise you are not receiving enough SPAM :-).

> >>> My point is that this is all that http-range-14 really/ requires you
> >>> to actually do/. You can ignore the metaphysics and the confusion
> >>> and the definition-soup and so on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then, since I can always be accused wrong regardless of my best
> >>>> intension,
> >>>
> >>> Well, you can be accused, but it seems to me that the above
> >>> algorithm also gives you a good defense. Remember, you never have to
> >>> justify a claim that something is an information resource, only that
> >>> it isn't.
> >> If I don't know what is an IR, how do I judge what it isn't?  This is
> >> essentially what Tim responded to my question.  He said: well !IR <>
> >> non-IR.  Then, what is the intersection of IR and non-IR.  This is
> >> not an answer, this is to avoid answer and then it is useless, don't
> >> you think so?
> >
> > No. The world is full of cases of concepts which have clear examples
> > and non-examples but which are very hard to specify near their edges,
> > so very hard to give exact definitions for. Colors are the often-cited
> > canonical example. There are reds which everyone will agree are red
> > and blues which everyone will agree are non-reds, but near the
> > red/orange boundary nobody will agree, even with themselves from day
> > to day. Natural concepts often resist precise definitions. That
> > doesn't stop them being extremely useful, however.
> Pat, I see the problem now.  We agree on that there is no clear
> distinction for IR.  So, let's don't argue in that direction.
> My question is very clear and precise.  Do you agree to invoke such
> logic in the web.
> If HTTP(x)=200, x=IR
> If HTTP(x)=303, x=?
> Here is the multiple choice
> (1): Yes.
>    (1a) The distinction between 200-303 is important.  (Then,
> it is you
> who is trying to make a clear distinction, not me.)
>    (1b) The relationship between 303 and 200 is not important.  Hence,
> 200 and 303 becomes irrelevant and therefore httpRange-14.
> (2).  No.  then, any discussion between 200 and 303 is moot and
> therefore httpRange-14.

Tempted to answer... ok... I will... Well certainly (1) but what it is that is important is *not* to confuse a [awww:representation of [a 'thing']] with a [awww:representation of [a description/depiction of [a 'thing']]].

> Tell me your position.  My position is very clear - that is (2).
> Otherwise, I don't know if you are defending for or against
> my position.
> Xiaoshu

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 16:30:28 UTC