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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:13:01 +0100
Message-ID: <47FE3C8D.4090904@musc.edu>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: "Michael K. Bergman" <mike@mkbergman.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Michael K. Bergman wrote:
>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>>>> Jonathan,
>>>> Clearly Xiaoshu is unhappy about this and that discussion will need 
>>>> to play out and, presumably, be taken into full account by the TAG. 
>>>> Meanwhile, I'm willing to help create the document - but my diary 
>>>> is pretty well full for this week and next.
>>> Don't single out Xiaoshu as there are other dissenters as well... 
>>> The first step is an issue summary document (focusing not on 
>>> solutions but on use cases), and preparing that can go on in 
>>> parallel with discussion of the merits of various solutions.
>> +1 about singling out, but not about "dissenters"
> I didn't think "dissent" was a loaded term, sorry. Xiaoshu said "The 
> proposed LINK is breaking this orthogonality", and the background was 
> the popularity and momentum of the RFC, so it seemed apt even if a bit 
> tongue-in-cheek (which never comes off in email).
> The use cases are intended to ground the discussion.
> We seem to have two discussions in this thread now, one on UA2D and 
> one on httpRange-14. I can see a couple of reasons why httpRange-14 
> might have reason to come up. A potential semantic web use case is one 
> (properties of IRs such as class and stability would be nice, but for 
> other things why would you use UA2D when 303 and # work perfectly 
> well?). Consistency of description with status codes is another (what 
> if the description says one thing but the status code seems to 
> contradict it?). I imagine there are others. I'll try to decouple use 
> cases from httpRange-14 and to list questions such as consistency 
> among those that need to be addressed. I don't want UA2D linked too 
> closely to httpRange-14 - it's distracting and probably not necessary.
>> This is not about us v them, but us communicating to the broader public.
>> This is not a new concern and it will not go away.  If there is an 
>> interest, I have been following these discussions for quite some 
>> months and have a lengthy set of references and individuals who have 
>> expressed concerns about these matters.
> Right now I am very interested in anything you have relating to 
> uniform access to descriptions (Link: header and equivalent).

I don't want to be annoying.  But please make a clear and objective 
definition of *description* for UA2D.

Honestly, I don't think how you can separate UA2D from httpRange-14 
because you can only define *description* w.r.t.  IR or non-IR.

I bet if you think hard enough, you will find that *description* is the 
same thing as *representation*.  Inventing a synonymy won't solve any 

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 16:20:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:21 UTC