Forwarded message 1
Looks to me like you only sent this to me, though it appear to be
written as if sent to the list.
You may want to try again.
Stuart
--
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
> Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
>
>>>> 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).
>>
>>
> Stuart's reading of me is correct. But I think Pat's has partial merit
> too. What Pat is trying to get is a level of comfort to avoid falling
> into the Decartian gap. (I probably have skipped many of my reasoning
> steps here). But if we just take the Web to as another *mean* of
> obtaining information, then Pat has read me correctly too. What we get
> from the Web is no different from what we get from sight, sound, and
> touch. the Web is just another information system, but with a larger
> scope and easier accessibility.
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> We could say that for a URI, its resource is somewhat equivalent (but
> not *is*) to what the URI denotes. But we have to define the
> equivalence. But this definition must be *explicit* and *objective* so
> that it must be signaled somewhere. The line of thought that I am
> trying to refute is the thought that: there is an intrinsic equivalence
> relation between a resource and its representation. But, there is none.
>
> Xiaoshu
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> Stuart
>> --
>>
>
>