[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs

• To: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:38:57 -0500
• References: <E16al5H-0004sH-00@m...> <3C69A32B.6D1AA8C9@p...> <E16awvc-0002PK-00@c...> <001801c1b48a$61177ba0$0301a8c0@n...> <3C6AC7FF.1010809@r...> <3C6AD2F9.79A4A0D5@p...> <3C6AD755.7010008@r...> <3C6AD9EE.FFA821E3@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120

Paul Prescod wrote:


> URIs never do conneg. HTTP servers do it on behalf of users.


Very well: my HTTP server does not do conneg on the URI that
names my home page.

 
> Fine. Will you accept it if I say that "http://www.prescod.net" is a URI
> that represents me. There happens to be an HTTP server that can serve
> representations of me. If you want to make an assertion about a document
> then I'd suggest you use this URI instead:
> 
>  http://www.prescod.net/index.html


I have no problem with this as such.  However, it would be useful to
have machine-understandable documentation of it, whether TM or RDF
or something else.

 
> You're saying that a bunch of non-contiguous bits in the Google database
> is "a document" even before anyone makes the query to combine them into
> anything related?


No, no.  The resource referred to by that URI is a document
because we interact with it by *reading* it (we may have to
stretch the meaning of "read" a bit when we deal with purely
graphical documents).

"Document" here has one of its ordinary senses:

2 a : a writing conveying information;

  b : a material substance (as a coin or stone) having on it a representation

      of thoughts by means of some conventional mark or symbol.


so sayeth m-w.com.  (Sense 1 has to do with something that serves
as evidence of some fact, as in "official document".)

> That's a pretty abstract definition. If I use CORBA to
> access the exact same bits would you say that I am getting a CORBA
> representation of a "document?" 


Same bits as what: the ones on the Google database, or the
ones returned by a GET specifying a Content-Type of text/html?
If the latter, then yes; if the former, probably not.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
  • URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• Next by Date: Re: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread