W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2009

RE: Splitting vs. Interpreting

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:53:11 +0000
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, "david@dbooth.org" <david@dbooth.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C832D269E0A0@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>

> >
> > Well... http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch is pretty clear in its one and  
> > only diagram that what is obtained from the web are  
> > awww:representation of a resource as opposed to the resource itself.  
> > I think that accords with your position.
> I think possibly there may be a misunderstanding here about the  
> meaning of the phrase "obtained from". If I walk up to the Web, so to  
> speak, and throw a URI at it, then what I get back is (as Stuart says)  
> a representation of something.

So far so good...

> But what I managed to make contact  
> with, and what sent me that representation, and which that  
> representation is a(n awww:)representation of, is supposed to be a  
> resource of some (special) kind. 

Still ok... 
"(special)" alluding to 'so-called' "information resource"? 

And parenthetically because of controversy over 1) objective charactterisation of such a 'special' kind of resources and 2) whether robust characterisation is actually necssary or possible?

> And Ive been reading Xaioshu as  meaning that that resource, whatever 
> it is, is what is "obtained from" the Web; in which case, his position 
> makes more sense (though I still  don't agree with it :-)

FWIW my reading of Xiaoshu's is that he complains that the TAG holds the position that it takes what is "obtained from" the web (aka. an awww:representation) as being *the* referenced resource, and that that is not a position that the TAG should hold - which is fortunate (maybe) because AFAIK it is not infact a position held by the TAG (or by TR/webarch).

That the awww:representation obtained could be *a* resource is possible. However, the obtained representation is just not (usually, ever?) the resource being referred to in the original reference. 

I'm still thinking about your book example... particularly 

	"This entity involved in the this transaction, here and now, is what you are asking 
	about; it is the thing that the name you just used refers to".

The physical book seems to serve as both message (awww:representation) and resource. The closest 'electronic' example I can get to is an immutable file/document that has a single invariant representation over its entire lifetime.

FWIW: I think Xiaoshu, you, I and the TAG (at least the one I was part of) hold(held) very similar positions.

> Pat
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or 
> (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 17:54:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:29 UTC