Re: URIs, used in RDF, that do not have associated documentation

2012/3/28 トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>:

> I did mean what I said. Classifying URIs as content-oriented vs.
> description-oriented is in my opinion the root problem. What I want to
> say is:
>
> * All HTTP URIs are description-oriented, even if they return a 200 *

I'm inclined to agree with you about the root problem, but I don't
think choosing one side over the other helps solve it.

The definition of an IR, that it can be totally represented in a
message is at odds with WebArch. A resources has a set of
representations, there isn't any single representation given special
status as "The One". It may exist, and this may be stated
somewhere/somehow. (There is also the possibility of media types we
haven't yet invented, cf. the hi-fidolity "thing/dog").

>From this I'd suggest it follows that we can't assume that a 200 means
we're getting the canonical message. It could perhaps be argued that
it's all very conceptual, that the set of representations considered
as a whole contains the message. But I don't think this gets us any
further in practice.

Talking about description-oriented is an improvement in the sense that
it gets rid of the need for "The One". But I reckon on the way it
loses the notion of a representation. It seems easier to approach it
from the other direction and say that a description is an
approximation to content. Take a photograph of a traffic cop, It isn't
a traffic cop, it's a graphic description of one. But you set that
photo at the side of the road and cars will slow down. The description
isn't the thing, but both can have the same effect.

So I'd suggest a 200 would be legitimate for a description (in
addition to what we normally refer to as content), because
descriptions can be treated as representations.

Cheers,
Danny.


-- 
http://dannyayers.com

http://webbeep.it  - text to tones and back again

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 14:18:24 UTC