The Zen and the Love of Information Resource

During the discussion of my article on the URI Identity and Web Architecture, I was told that what is Non-InformationResource, i.e., the complement set of InformationResource, is not defined by AWWW. Yet, http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes can still be treated as an instance of it and made false per the bylaw of httpRange-14. I find it very amusing because it reminds me this Buddhism's proverb.

Q: What is Buddha?
A: Can't say, can't say. Wrong once said. (不可说, 不可说, 一说即是错.)

The best interpretation about the answer (but not the Buddha) is that Buddha is such an infinitude that no language is capable of describing it. Buddha is the unspeakable and, therefore, unteachable. Everyone must comprehend Buddha by themselves. Buddha is the truth that are not endorsed by and realized by any truth. Therefore, once Buddha becomes speakable, some truth must be associated with the Buddha, making the Buddha no longer the true Buddha because true Buddha doesn't have any truth. So, the Buddha that I am trying to explain it here is not true Buddha either. It is just one form of the Buddha. True Buddha doesn't have any form but may manifest in any form.

Sanmao (三毛) a Taiwanese author, once was asked: what is Love? She gave the same answer. "Can't say, can't say. Wrong once said."

I am amused because I wonder, do we want to make the web be a love affair so that we have to fall in love with InformationResource in order to understand it? Or do we want to make it a religion, i.e., to make the web as the quest for the true InformationResource?

URI Identity and Web Architecture Revisited

Out of the discussions on W3C's TAG mailing list, I have written down my thoughts on URI's identity issue and my personal viewpoint on the architecture of the web. The article is published at here.

Here is a brief summary.

(1) Current definition of resource ignores the nature of URI as an interface to the web. There are three different kind of resources, the one that we cared about should be defined as "abstract entities that have a dereferencible URI in the web".
(2) The current definition of "information resource" on the AWWW document is not well thought. The debate about what information resource is do not solve any real issues.
(3) TAG's httpRange-14 is incorrectly phrased. HTTP response code should indicate if a URI is informational but not resource.