On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote: > I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a burden on > publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish to "refer to > these information resources themselves", making them "unable to talk about > Web pages using the Web description language RDF". > > What about minting a new URI at > "http://information.resourcifier.net/encodedURI"; or similar for talking about > such things? The service could even add value by tracking last update times, > content types, encodings, etc. > > Jason > > p.s. Don't bother criticizing the half baked idea, I thought about it for < > 10 seconds. The point is 100 alternatives could have been hashed out in the > time spent discussing and implementing http-range-14.
I confess to finding this kind of sneering remark rather annoying. If you think it is this trivial to work out some 'alternative', why don't you come up with a few actual ideas and see what happens when they get a little peer review? Your idea, above, hardly makes first base, as Im sure you already realized when you added the p.s. So why not try inventing one that has a snowballs chance in hell of actually working? Im sure that the world would be delighted if you could solve this trivial problem in 5 ways, let alone a hundred. If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write classical model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You might want to start by reading Korzybski's 'General Semantics'. Pat > Kudos to google et al for ignoring it. > > On 6/15/2011 9:27 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: >> On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayes<pha...@ihmc.us> wrote: >>> OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are >>> saying or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try >>> running it past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that >>> a description of something is in any useful sense isomorphic to the thing >>> it describes. As in, some RDF describing, say, the Eiffel tower is not in >>> any way isomorphic to the actual tower. (I also do not understand why you >>> think this claim matters, by the way.) >>> Perhaps we are understanding the meaning of http-range-14 differently. My >>> understanding of it is as follows: if an HTTP GET applied to a bare URI >>> http:x returns a 200 response, then http:x is understood to refer to (to be >>> a name for, to denote) the resource that emitted the response. Hence, it >>> follows that if a URI is intended to refer to something else, it has to >>> emit a different response, and a 303 redirect is appropriate. It also >>> follows that in the 200 case, the thing denoted has to be the kind of thing >>> that can possibly emit an HTTP response, thereby excluding a whole lot of >>> things, such as dogs, from being the referent in such cases. >> Even with information resources there's a lot of flexibility in what >> HTTP can legitimately respond with, there needn't be bitwise identity >> across representations of an identified resource. Given this, I'm >> proposing a description can be considered a good-enough substitute for >> an identified thing. Bearing in mind it's entirely up to the publisher >> if they wish to conflate things, and up to the consumer to try and >> make sense of it. >> >> As a last attempt - this is a tar pit! - doing my best to take on >> board your (and other's) comments, I've wrapped up my claims in a blog >> post: http://dannyayers.com/2011/06/15/httpRange-14-Reflux >> >> Cheers, >> Danny. >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
