Re: Proposal to amend the httpRange-14 resolution

2012/3/26 Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>:
> Hi Tim,
>
> thank you for your detailed input. I'll add my comments inline.
>
> 2012/3/26 Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>:
>>
>> On 2012-03 -26, at 01:31, トーレ　エリクソン wrote:
>>>>> This proposal entails a partial reversion of the httpRange-14
>>>>> resolution. Specifically, it suggests that a representation retrieved
>>>>> from a HTTP URI will never* be equivalent to what the URI denotes (the
>>>>> resource), but will always be a description (of the state) of the
>>>>> resource, eliminating the risk of confusing a resource with its
>>>>> description.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> However, if you don't own the URI, stating this seems to irresponsible.
>>> The owner might add a content-negotiated Swedish translation with a
>>> dc:title of "Hittad" and make your statement invalid.
>>
>>
>> That is hair-splitting -- yes, a generic IR URI may indeed by correspond to
>> a series of more specific versions in different languages
>> (See http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic and the associated ontology)
>> and one can argue whether people incorrectly actually use
>> one title to refer to the whole lot, but I think it is useful.
>
> I have no problem with adding the title to the generic resource,
> especially if you own the URI. My understanding of Jonathan's text was
> though that by looking at one representation titled "Trouvee", one
> could infer that all representations would have the same title.

This is an incorrect reading of what I wrote. I was very careful in
what I said, and I did not say this.

Jonathan

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 11:55:09 UTC