- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:03:08 +0000
- To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Xiashou, > -----Original Message----- > From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu] > Sent: 11 April 2008 11:27 > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com > Cc: Jonathan Rees; Phil Archer; Pat Hayes; Williams, Stuart > (HP Labs, Bristol); www-tag@w3.org WG > Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions > > > > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > > Xiaoshu Wang writes: <snip/> > The implied message of the httpRange-14 and the definition of IR is > trying to find a way to say "message"="resource". Aggghhhh.... we are back going around this loop again. No... how many time have you and I agreed already that the reference, even accessed, awww:resource and the awww:representation of it (a message manifest as part of an HTTP response) are distinct things... what you get back from a HTTP GET is *never* the awww:resource referenced in the corresponding HTTP GET. Countless time we have been round that loop and countless time I believe that we have agreed. Even in the defn of IR is AWWW what it is that is conveyed in the message is *of* the awww:resource and not the awww:resource itself. A flaw in the IR definition that I am sympathetic to (and others have raised this elsewhere) that both its past and future 'states' are essential characteristics of the awww:resource ie. we can never say that two different URI refer to the same thing unless they are know to share both a past and a future over all time). And even acknowledging that flaw... I can wriggle a bit, enough to sleep at nights, because at the end of time I can look back and serialise the whole history of the information resource as a message - just not the message that would typically be thought of which it generally pertainant to just one instant. > But they are - in > fact - two different entities. Yes...we keep agreeing. > One is on the client side and the other > one on the server side. No matter how close or similar they are (in > terms of byte-copy), there are at last two DIFFERENT entities. Content > negotiation makes all proposed solution for "message=resource" to break > down regardless how you want to limit the definition of IR. No one, at least no-one that I know of, on the TAG, Pat..., no-one other than you is proposing "message=resource", and you seem to be doing it as a rhethorical device so that you can argue against it. > The delivery of a message is SAFE, therefore, doesn't imply the content > of message is safe (whatever it means). They are two different issues. > We should understand the nature of a resource from what its content is > telling us but NOT from *how* its content is delivered. Isn't this the > founding principle of the web - the principle of orthogonal specification? > > Xiaoshu > Stuart -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 13:07:40 UTC