- From: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:57:31 +0900
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, www-tag@w3.org
Hi Danny, 2012/3/28 Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>: > 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. We agree completely. An img/jpeg octet stream can be a used as a representation of the traffic cop, as well as the photo. Representations are reusable. > 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. Sure, that was my initial way of thinking of the problem, but other people vehemently opposed that an img/jpeg octet stream could be a direct representation of a human. Switching to pure description-based semantics neutralizes this opposition. The end result is the same though. Tore
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 21:57:59 UTC