Re: Proposed rewrite for section 3.1

Hi Stuart, TAG, SWEO,

we removed the sentence indicated, see below.

It was Stuart Williams who said at the right time 25.03.2008 15:02 the 
following words:
> Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Leo Sauermann writes:
>>> It is important to understand that using URIs, it is possible to
>>> identify both a thing (which exists outside of the web) and a web
>>> document describing the thing. For example the person Alice is
>>> described on her homepage. Bob may not like the look of the homepage,
>>> but fancy the person Alice. So two URIs are needed, one for Alice, one
>>> for the homepage or a RDF document describing Alice. The question is
>>> where to draw the line between the case where either is possible and
>>> the case where only descriptions are available.
>> Good, I like that.
> Me to...
thanks for the positive feedback - this helps much to measure the 
quality of the current version and defend it against other people 
wanting possible changes.

>>> According to W3C guidelines ([AWWW], section 2.2.), we have an Web
>>> document (there called information resource) if all its essential
>>> characteristics can be conveyed in a message. Examples are a Web page,
>>> an image or a product catalog. The URI identifies both the entity and
>>> indirectly the message that conveys the characteristics.
> ...however, I would rather that you avoid suggesting that the URI 
> identifies the (presumably, http response) message. The message is 
> ephemeral, could be 'preserved' in another resource and that resource 
> blessed with another URI. There is a type/token distinction here as to 
> whether speaking of the messages is speaking of the occurence of a 
> sequence of bits passing across a medium or all such occurences of 
> that same sequence of bits; also conneg means that of an instant there 
> are multiple messages that could have been returned. In general, http 
> response message are without identity in the sense of an assigned URI 
> with which to refer to them directly or indirectly.
> I suggest that you drop the last sentence above.
I think that dropping the sentence is not essential, because it should 
be clear from the other explanations how conneg works and the sentence 
says "indirectly". But - cutting a sentence is always good, keep it 
simple... so I remove it.


DI Leo Sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:

Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313

Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 11:11:34 UTC