- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:30:47 +0100
- To: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Stuart Williams wrote: > > Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >> Pat Hayes wrote: >> >>> At 1:29 AM +0100 4/12/08, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> Question 4: Is an HTTP-URI = HTTP+URI? >>>>>> >>>>> I have no idea what this means. >>>>> >>>> What I mean is this: >>>> HTTP-URI is simply an HTTP URI. >>>> HTTP+URI is when the HTTP URI is bound to the HTTP transportation >>>> protocol. >>>> Hence, the question can be rephrased as such: >>>> Is what a URI denotes the same thing as what the URI is dereferenced? >>>> >>> Sometimes but also sometimes not. http-range-14 says that when the >>> response code is 200, the answer is yes. As I say, I don't like this >>> much either; but I can't see any feasible other way to answer the >>> question/ at all/ for a given URI. >>> >>> I take it that your answer would also be: maybe, maybe not; but that >>> you would want the decision to depend not on an http code, but instead >>> on some RDF assertions which would be accessible from the URI (in a >>> way I confess to not following yet, but ...) Is that right? >>> >> Yes. That is my point. But I am not stubborn and unwilling to accept >> any other model. It is because I don't see other models that can give me >> a clear and objective way to answer the four questions that I asked. >> >> I think TAG's httpRange-14 is the following logic. >> >> Representation=Resource if HTTP=200. >> > I'll just repeat here what I have said previously to you offline... > > That is NOT the TAG's position. >> But Conneg breaks either the "equal" sign or the if clause. >> > I also believe that you continue to be confused about how Conneg is > intended to be used. Yes or no. From the articulation by Pat for my viewpoint here, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0139.html, my understanding of Conneg is different from what the Conneg that was intended. But whether I am confused or not depends on the precise definitions of resource, representation and precise specification of their relationships. I can say that I am confused w.r.t. the lack of a precise definition of current specifications. Or I can say, I am not confused w.r.t. my understanding of Conneg. Is that fair? Xiaoshu Xiaoshu
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 11:31:36 UTC