Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> As long as a representation is returned, you are right.
> A representation of a physical singularity might be any
> of the things you cite; ie, documents.
> A definition of identity where the words "all", "any",
> etc. are used will collapse into a singularity.
> At that point, we lose access to details. If however,
> the Web is defined as an abstract "system", it is
> likely to be defined as a set of components
> any of which is boundable, but which when
> combined, the notion of boundary is described
> in terms of that assembly (the system, not
> the information it can represent). These boundaries
> are useful because the thing named is the
> assembly, and the capabilities of that assembly
> can be specified and named. Then and only
> then does the concept of identity as bound
> to location become useful because that property
> limits the choice of choices. Basic Shannon.
> We can cite abstract definitions of information space,
> and even very large information space(s), but
> the web is a system that enables us to identify
> (and I use the verb deliberately) and access
> representations of information items in the
> space. That the space is abstract is fine.
> It needs to be. One who cannot program to
> abstractions should not use XML on the Web.
> But ultimately the architecture of the Web system
> is concerned with the specifications of the
> components and the ways in which these can
> be combined to meet a given requirement in
> the context of a network: The Internet.
> The Web is an abstraction. The Internet
> components are not. Information space
> is an abstraction; representations or
> resources are not. We do not simply
> enumerate components; we define a context
> of use in accordance with the requirements.
> We can usefully say that SOAP/RPC is a Web
> system and that information it accesses is on
> the Web where it uses these Internet components
> in accordance with these requirements (which
> Fielding, et al have brilliantly enumerated).
> We cannot be as picky about how extensively
> that is applied: that is, if a URI identifies
> a WSDL, that is on the web. Anything that is
> returns as a representation is on the web. If
> the implementor chooses to hide information
> behind that, it is not on the web and that
> is a strictly local and private decision, and
> not warrantied by the Web system definitions.
> If they use a Web service that hides these,
> then as TimBL and Paul have pointed out, the
> user is not held accountable for side effects
> if any.
> Beating it out of them just makes the pig mad.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:25:20AM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > A black hole.
> Could have lots of different representations;
> - a picture (xray)
> - its location
> - its Schwarzschild radius
> It obviously can't identify itself, but anybody can identify it for
> themselves. For example;
> A GET could return any of the above.
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
John Cowan <email@example.com> 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_