Apologies if my keyboard sneered at you, though comparing an application
problem to 1% of hr14 at web scale hardly trivializes it; certainly it
does the opposite. Good luck preserving your mental model if you
require webmasters to spell Korzybski.
On 6/15/2011 6:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a burden on publishers for the
sake of a handful of applications that wish to "refer to these information resources
themselves", making them "unable to talk about Web pages using the Web description
language RDF".
What about minting a new URI at
"http://information.resourcifier.net/encodedURI"; or similar for talking about
such things? The service could even add value by tracking last update times, content
types, encodings, etc.
Jason
p.s. Don't bother criticizing the half baked idea, I thought about it for< 10
seconds. The point is 100 alternatives could have been hashed out in the time
spent discussing and implementing http-range-14.
I confess to finding this kind of sneering remark rather annoying. If you think
it is this trivial to work out some 'alternative', why don't you come up with a
few actual ideas and see what happens when they get a little peer review? Your
idea, above, hardly makes first base, as Im sure you already realized when you
added the p.s. So why not try inventing one that has a snowballs chance in hell
of actually working? Im sure that the world would be delighted if you could
solve this trivial problem in 5 ways, let alone a hundred.
If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing it
describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write classical
model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You might want to
start by reading Korzybski's 'General Semantics'.
Pat
