Re: Proposal to amend the httpRange-14 resolution

2012/3/27 Jonathan A Rees <>:
> 2012/3/26 Tore Eriksson <>:
>> Hi Tim,
>> thank you for your detailed input. I'll add my comments inline.
>> 2012/3/26 Tim Berners-Lee <>:
>>> 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 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.

Sorry if I misrepresented your text. I'll explain why I thought it
meant this below.

You started with
To say that any representation retrieved from "http://example/hen" has
(or will have) "Trouvée" as its title, we can write (in Turtle
    [ir:onWebAt "http://example/hen"] dc:title "Trouvée".
[this tells that] if they dereference that URI, they will get
something with that dc:title [1]

And then used the generic URI instead of the blank node.

A common practice is to use an absolute URI as a name for a (generic)
information entity that is on the Web at that URI.
<http://example/hen> dc:title "Trouvée".

Then you followed up with

Whether we can expect in general that a dereferenceable URI will be
understood as a name for a (generic) information entity on the Web at
that URI is the essence of the heated httpRange-14 debate

I assumed that this meant that when following httpRange-14 the RDF
above is expected. The URI seems to denote a generic resource. Further
on you connect the generic information entity with the class of
"information resources".

We can say that "information resource" (the conventional term in Web
architecture) subsumes "generic information entity" as above.

My train of thought was this: If a HTML document is retrieved by with
a 200 GET, then under httpRange-14 this is an information resource,
and also a generic information entity. Let's say that the HTML
document received has the dc:title "Trouvee". Then the generic
resource also has the same title (according to [1]) and so has all the
other resources available from the URI in question (also according to
[1]). I suppose "titled" was a bad choice or words, it was just prose
_:representation dc:title "Trouvee" .

Any clarification would be appreciated, but I know that you are
swamped with other tasks, so feel free to just accept my apology for


Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:11:15 UTC