- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 16:26:05 +0000
- To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu] > Sent: 09 April 2008 15:22 > To: Pat Hayes > Cc: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol); Jonathan Rees; > www-tag@w3.org 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: > >>>> <snip/> > >> 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="http://www.example.org/">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 Stuart -- 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