RE: Uniform access to descriptions


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> On Behalf Of Xiaoshu Wang
> Sent: 10 April 2008 17:13
> To: Jonathan Rees
> Cc: Michael K. Bergman; WG; Phil Archer
> Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions
> Jonathan Rees wrote:


> Jonathan,
> 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
> problem.
> Xiaoshu

[In what follows "s/awww:resource/thing" if you prefer]

With apologies for all the 'awww:...'ing, but Pat did ask that we speak very carefully.

That one 'awww:resource' describes another 'awww:resource' (possibly amongst other 'awww:resource') is a relation between 'awww:resources' and other 'awww:resources' which describe them.

A given 'awww:resource' may have one or more 'awww:representations' (ephemeral messages which convey some view of current 'content' of the given 'awww:resource'). Those 'awww:representations' are *not* the give 'awww:resource' they are 'of' it, but they are not 'it'. I think that we, you an I have agreed on that many times already.

'awww:resources' that described also have 'awww:representations', but those are 'awww:representations' of the description (an 'awww:resource' that describes) and *not* 'awww:representations' of the described 'awww:resource'.


So... Synonymy? No!


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

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 16:39:47 UTC