Re: Uniform access to descriptions

At 2:05 PM -0600 4/12/08, Michaeljohn Clement wrote:
>Thank you, this illuminates the discussion a great deal,
>especially now that Xiaoshu has confirmed its correspondence
>with his intentions.
>This immediately raises, for me, some questions (for Pat or
>Xiaoshu or anyone):
>- Is this view an accurate view of the Web which exists?
>   A goal?  Or simply an alternative, interesting idea?
>(I would say only the latter.  And I thought I detected a bit of a
>gleam in your eye, Pat, throughout.)

Yes. The gleam actually was a realization that this was (more or 
less) the picture I had formed when I first set out to read the REST 
work, in order to try to find out what the hell the TAG were actually 
saying; and slowly, painfully coming to the realization that words 
which peppered the awww literature which had seemed familiar - in 
particular, 'representation' - were in fact being used there with a 
highly unusual and special meaning. And yet, the whole story did seem 
to make a kind of sense when the wider meaning was used. I had never, 
until now, followed up that elusive notion.

>- Is the narrow, awww:represents meaning of 'represents' a problem
>   to be resolved by propagation of the original, broader English
>   meaning into the Web architecture?

Thats not how I would put it. The point is not to just get the 
terminology straight, but that the actual ideas seem to apply 
naturally to the more general picture; and these broader ideas of 
representation are now part of the Web, and are centrally involved 
with these discussions (whether traditional webarch likes it or not 

>   Or is the confusion a natural result of the co-option of an English
>   word as a technical term, comparable to our use of words such as
>   "server" and "client", in which case it should be resolved in other
>   ways, viz education and clarification?
>Again I would say the latter.

If it were just a matter of terminology, I would agree. In fact, Ive 
been trying to do exactly that for some time now.

>- Would the effective dropping of awww:resources out of the universe
>   of (convenient) discourse a desirable or acceptable state of affairs?

I wouldn't suggest that for a moment. I agree, information resources 
are real things and we must be able to talk about them. And the 
problem that http-range-14 tackles is still with us and needs to be 
solved somehow.


>>  We might call it a storyteller for R. R might have a whole lot of
>>  storytellers, each capable of telling different kinds of story about R.
>A question mostly for Xiaoshu:
>- In this view, do you consider it desirable for a storyteller to be able
>   to tell precisely 0 or 1 stories about R per media type?

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell

Received on Sunday, 13 April 2008 03:03:19 UTC