- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:12:53 +0100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> Xiaoshu,
>
> On 2008-04 -12, at 05:37, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>> I think TAG's httpRange-14 is the following logic.
>>
>> Representation=Resource if HTTP=200.
>>
>
> The relation ship is not equality. It is 'representation'. The
> resource is an abstract document.
> The thing returned, with a 200 response, is a tag:representation of
> the document,
>
>
> Loosely, It is a representation using some form of languages and
> encoding of the meaning of the document. Some languages may be
> better at giving ht meaning than others. Also some languages can be
> more easily assimilated by a program than others. But the
> architecture of the web relies on the fact that if I find out some
> information from a document with URI x, then I can quote x to someone
> else and expect them to be able to get the same information. Even if
> they are using different hardware and software and have a different
> screen size, and so on. They might get degraded information through
> conneg: for example, if they can only get RDF and there is information
> on the HTML version which isn't encoded in the RDF version, then there
> is loss, and the server should only do conneg if really the publisher
> is quite happy with someone getting either conneged representation back.
>
> Conneg MUST NEVER be used to select between quite different documents,
> or between a document and another document about the first document.
>
> That is the intent of the relation 'representation', as in 'the HTTP
> 200 response is a representation of the document'.
>
> ('document' is called 'InformationResource' in the AWWW)
Isn't that give us (at least me) the problem? First, I don't know what
is a "document" and what is not. Second, 200 then implies some kind of
equivalence, (in your words that is not *quite different*), how do I
judge what kind of difference is *quite* different and what is not
*quite* different?
It is not I try to argue for the sake of argument, because that sort of
wording doesn't help me dong anything in practice.
Xiaoshu
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 13:13:39 UTC