[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] (retitled) What is a 'resource'

To: edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:06:36 -0700
Message-id: <6B5F0743-D894-4D12-B9C2-B5C4DF42A8DC@xxxxxxx>
Ed, Pat
  Sorry to butt in here ...    (01)

  At one point the TAG was talking about a model involving  
transducers, that might help here:    (02)

1. A URL is a name/symbol/identifier, that identifies a resource  
(something with a name)
2. There are transducers (a.k.a. web servers) that can map an  
identifier to a representation
3. Using the HTTP protocol to dereference the content of a URL  
amounts to interacting with that transducer to get a representation  
(bag of bits) of a particular resource (which it itself inherently  
unknowable except via pictures of it)    (03)

This is where the time-varying function view of resources came from  
(I believe).    (04)

Frank    (05)

On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:    (06)

> Pat,
> Thanks again for the further clarification.  I will retract my  
> pejorative comment.
> If I may summarize, there are two concepts at work here:
>   - the Internet transfer protocol endpoint
>   - the "sensible thing" at that endpoint
> The TAG is not able to define any clear characteristics of the  
> latter, but the
> TAG does appreciate that it is somehow different from the former.   
> The TAG is
> not comfortable using the term "resource" to refer to the latter,  
> because it
> is not clear that it actually exists, or that two different  
> observers will
> agree as to what the "sensible thing" at some endpoint is.  So the  
> TAG uses
> the term "resource" to mean the/your/some interpretation of the  
> stream of bits
> you get from the former when you GET it.
> The endpoint is (I think) what I meant by "location".
> The "sensible thing" is (I think) what I meant by "resource",
> and I agree with all the associated caveats.
> For my purposes, the interpretation of the stream of bits, as a  
> collection of
> information elements, is a distinct but related concept.  And that  
> too needs a
> term.  I thought that was what the term "web page" referred to, but  
> perhaps
> the "web page" has a narrower meaning that is too closely coupled  
> to the
> implementation at the server end to be used for the contents "on  
> the wire".
> So if that is a "resource", then that problem is solved, but we  
> still need a
> term for the "sensible thing".  Yes, the "sensible thing" will have  
> a really
> vacuous definition -- it is someone's conceptualization of the  
> thing at the
> endpoint.
> But there are common kinds of "sensible things" that are important,  
> and we
> need a general term that includes all of those, so long as it also  
> contains a
> bucket for "other".  For example, we understand "static documents" and
> "services" as principal subcategories.  And we also understand that  
> the
> "resource" -- the bitstream returned -- for a "static document" may  
> well
> include a representation of the document, a document metadata set, a
> collection of provider labels, a site menu, a collection of ads,  
> and possibly
> other things.  And while the document is static, some of the other  
> stuff might
> not be.  But that is the difference between the conceptualized  
> "sensible
> thing" and the "resource on the wire".
> It is very important for the provider to think of the "content" of  
> that web
> page as all of that stuff, because some of the other elements  
> relate to
> presenting image, providing services beyond the document, and  
> generating
> revenue.  And since I only care about some of that and ignore the  
> rest, my
> model of "content" for that page will be different from the  
> provider's.  So we
> may disagree substantially on what the "sensible thing" is.
> So, yes.  There are lots of associated ideas here, and they are all  
> a bit
> messy.  But it is to some extent "browser-based access" that  
> muddies the
> picture.  I suspect that things will become a lot less messy when/ 
> where the
> "service" model begins to dominate.
> -Ed
> -- 
> Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                FAX: +1 301-975-4694
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
>   and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog- 
> forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    (07)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>