- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:28:00 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org
- CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Jonathan Rees wrote: > Even if there are other ways to think about retrieval vs. reference > that work better that this, I hope my point remains: the properties > are more important than the types. I agree with all you say, and you've done some great work these past few months - the referential-use document is very well written, and very clear :) In my time away I've thought about the issue(s) a great deal, and my main general comment, is that I'm worried that dealing with the retrieval case only may not be complete enough, and will leave lots of scope for these issues to re-arise. I guess this would bear most on any httpRange-14-replacement guidance. The only potential clarity I have on the issue, and why I've clipped above, is that I feel the /only/ property that distinguishes an "IR" from anything else in the universe, is that it has a [transfer/transport]-protocol as a property of it. In the case of HTTP this would be anything that has an HTTP Interface as a property of it. If we say that anything with this property is a member of set X. If an interaction with the thing named <p:y>, using protocol 'p:', is successful, then <p:y> is a member of X. An X of course, being what is currently called an "Information Resource". Taking this approach would then position 303 as a clear opt-out built in to HTTP which allows a server to remain indifferent and merely point to some other X which may, or may not, give one more information as to what <p:y> refers to. Though, this may all be nonsense of course! Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 12:28:51 UTC