Lists Home |
Date Index |
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:
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
"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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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_