Hello Jonathan,
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 05:05:10PM +0200, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
Hmm... so from a 200 statuscode and HR14, I can conclude that I have
a representation of it, that is is an IR and therefor has a representation
that conveys the essential characteristics of it (definition of
Hello Jonathan,
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:05:29PM +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
I thought current representation of in
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp-20120229/ refers to something more like
2) and definitely not to mere descriptions but when I look at it there seems
to be nothing
hi all
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:53:03PM +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
maybe I made an error by assuming that the term IR is inherent in the term
representation - by assuming that a NIR cannot have a representation, only
descriptions ?
No. The whole point about the use of the term IR
On 4/1/12 4:35 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
hi all
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:53:03PM +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
maybe I made an error by assuming that the term IR is inherent in the term
representation - by assuming that a NIR cannot have a representation, only
descriptions ?
No. The
On 4/1/12 11:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/1/12 4:35 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
hi all
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:53:03PM +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
maybe I made an error by assuming that the term IR is inherent in
the term
representation - by assuming that a NIR cannot have a
On Sun, 2012-04-01 at 10:35 +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
The whole point about the use of the term IR in HR14 seems to be to say:
Everything that has a representation has a representation that conveys it's
essential characteristics.
Is this important ? If yes, should we write it this
Hello Kingsley,
Everything that has a representation has a representation that conveys it's
essential characteristics.
[...]
Aren't we somehow losing the fundamental fact that all resources on the
Web are supposed to be bear self-describing content, constrained by mime
type. That when all
On 4/1/12 12:31 PM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
Hello Kingsley,
Everything that has a representation has a representation that conveys it's
essential characteristics.
[...]
Aren't we somehow losing the fundamental fact that all resources on the
Web are supposed to be bear self-describing
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 11:32 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
[ . . . ]
So this is something we already knew from the HTTP spec, which all of
us pretty much agree to;
We all agree to it as a *protocol* specification -- not as a *semantics*
specification.
[ . . . ]
On the other hand the specs are
On 4/1/12 9:42 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 11:32 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
[ . . . ]
So this is something we already knew from the HTTP spec, which all of
us pretty much agree to;
We all agree to it as a *protocol* specification -- not as a *semantics*
specification.
[ .
hi all
The document at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp-20120229/ uses the
term X (a sequence of octets + media type) is a representation of Y (an entity).
I have a question: Can two different entities have the same representation ?
If not, we can define an IR as a thing for which there is
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de wrote:
hi all
The document at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp-20120229/ uses the
term X (a sequence of octets + media type) is a representation of Y (an
entity).
I have a question: Can two different entities have
Hello Jonathan,
maybe I made an error by assuming that the term IR is inherent in the term
representation - by assuming that a NIR cannot have a representation, only
descriptions ?
But if a a NIR cannot have a representation and two different IRs cannot
have the same representation, then
On 3/31/12 11:32 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
In any case information resource as used in HR14a is well connected
to AWWW and I think redefining the term, no matter how bad the
definition, would just confuse things. You could say HTTP resource
or something for resources that have representations
Hello Jonathan,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:54:09AM -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I have a question: Can two different entities have the same representation ?
I've never heard anything say anything that would rule this out.
Hmm... so from a 200 statuscode and HR14, I can conclude that I have
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 20:51 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
[ . . . ] But then we would also have to define what 'content' and
'description' meant. I
On Mar 27, 2012, at 6:59 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
This seems an appropriate place for me to drop in my 2 cents.
I like the 303 trick. People that care about this stuff can use it
(and appear to be doing so), but it doesn't really matter too much
that people that don't care don't use it. It
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com wrote:
I see best practices as being separate from normative requirements, and
thought that the proposals were for the normative requirements. We did
recognise in the proposal the requirement for a best practice document
Jonathan,
On 30 Mar 2012, at 18:10, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
My opinion is that any proposal needs to specify a way to say how you
get from a resource to its content. I do a SPARQL query and find a URI
for a resource based on metadata (stored in the triple store) that
make it seem interesting;
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 01:37 +0100, Norman Gray wrote:
[ . . . ]
Thus as it stands, the term 'information resource' in [1] has no
implication (beyond incidentally reiterating that the 200-retrieved
content is a (REST) representation of the resource).
However, the point of introducing the term
Greetings.
[This is a late response, because I dithered about sending it, because this
whole thing seems simple enough that I've got to be missing stuff]
On 2012 Mar 27, at 14:02, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de
wrote:
Hello
Hello Norman,
let me summarize that:
-Regardless of how you define IR, everything that denotes what it accesses
should lie in IR.
-Putting something in NIR therefor also answers the question if it denotes
what it accesses with no by entailment.
-There may or may not be IRs that do not
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Norman Gray nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk wrote:
Greetings.
[This is a late response, because I dithered about sending it, because this
whole thing seems simple enough that I've got to be missing stuff]
On 2012 Mar 27, at 14:02, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue,
Hallo Norman,
-Regardless of how you define IR, everything that denotes what it accesses
should lie in IR.
-Putting something in NIR therefor also answers the question if it denotes
what it accesses with no by entailment.
I have worded this very badly. We are talking about things and
Michael, hello.
On 2012 Mar 28, at 22:35, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
For all URIs U: denote(U) = access(U) - denote(U) a IR
It follows: For all URIs U: denote(U) not a IR - denote(U) != access(U)
I think it's impossible, within the terms of HR14, to say 'denote(U) not a IR'
-- you can
Hello Tim,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:59:42PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
12) Still people say well, to know whether I use 200 or 303 I need to know
if this sucker is an IR or NIR when instead they should be saying Well, am
I going to serve the content of this sucker or information about
This seems an appropriate place for me to drop in my 2 cents.
I like the 303 trick. People that care about this stuff can use it
(and appear to be doing so), but it doesn't really matter too much
that people that don't care don't use it. It seems analogous to the
question of HTML validity. Best
On 3/27/12 7:59 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
This seems an appropriate place for me to drop in my 2 cents.
I like the 303 trick. People that care about this stuff can use it
(and appear to be doing so), but it doesn't really matter too much
that people that don't care don't use it. It seems analogous
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de wrote:
Hello Tim,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:59:42PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
12) Still people say well, to know whether I use 200 or 303 I need to know
if this sucker is an IR or NIR when instead they should be
On 3/27/12 9:02 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
A prime example is any DOI,
e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462
(try doing conneg for RDF).
I don't always have to seek or need RDF. I just need structured data. I
can make Linked Data from non RDF resources.
See:
1.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 3/27/12 9:02 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
A prime example is any DOI,
e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462
(try doing conneg for RDF).
I don't always have to seek or need RDF. I just need
On 3/27/12 9:02 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
Maybe the TAG or someone has to make a
statement admitting that the way httpRange-14(a) was phrased was a big
screwup, that the real issue is content vs. description, not a type
distinction.
It should!
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
Founder CEO
Hello Jonathan,
so let the question be did I GET what the URI denotes and let httprange14
be 200 - yes, 303 - no.
Let another question be can this URI be used with document annotation
properties (or: Is this URI an IR) ? From 200 a statuscode, I can infer that
the URI can be used with document
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Michael Brunnbauer
bru...@netestate.de wrote:
Hello Jonathan,
so let the question be did I GET what the URI denotes and let httprange14
be 200 - yes, 303 - no.
Basically yes, although you have to be careful preserve the
generic/specific (or
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net wrote:
...
There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that
does not have the description as content. A prime example is any DOI,
e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462
(try doing conneg
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Leigh Dodds le...@ldodds.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net wrote:
...
There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that
does not have the description as content. A prime example is any DOI,
e.g.
Hi Jonathan,
On 3/27/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Leigh Doddsle...@ldodds.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Reesr...@mumble.net wrote:
...
There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that
does not have the
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
On 3/27/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Leigh Doddsle...@ldodds.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Reesr...@mumble.net wrote:
...
There
Jonathan,
On 27 Mar 2012, at 14:02, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de
wrote:
This whole information resource thing needs to just go away. I can't
believe how many people come back to it after the mistake has been
pointed out so
Hi all,
On Mar 27, 2012, at 18:01, Jeni Tennison wrote:
Jonathan,
On 27 Mar 2012, at 14:02, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de
wrote:
This whole information resource thing needs to just go away. I can't
believe how many people
On 2012-03 -25, at 14:06, Norman Gray wrote:
Tim, greetings.
On 2012 Mar 25, at 17:35, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
(Not useful to talk about NIRs. The web architecture does not. Now does
Jonathan's baseline, not HTTP Range-14. Never assume that what an IR is
about is not itself a IR.)
41 matches
Mail list logo
