W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > November 2008

Re: statements about resources vs. representations

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:17:28 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0811211017l2724ceeau50a64052fbc70b35@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>

AFAIK there is no way to make a statement about a representation, only
about a resource. Therefore we can not evaluate the truth of something
like a statement involving containsWord solely by looking at
representations.

-Alan

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
>
> (Using "representation" in the AWWW sense here.)
>
> Suppose I have a resource R, and for some reason I believe that
> R dc:creator author:Charles_Dickens.
>
> Now suppose that I do a GET to obtain a representation, and let F be
> the fixed resource (see [1]) whose representation is this representation.
> (I'll need a term for the coercion of representation to fixed resource, so
> I'll say "the FR of the representation.")
>
> Assuming good faith and proper functioning on everyone's part,
> can I conclude that F dc:creator author:Charles_Dickens . ?  I suspect
> so, but is this idea codified anywhere? Wouldn't this be part of AWWSW?
>
> It seems to me that some properties will be shared between a resource
> and its representations' FRs, while others aren't.
>
> E.g. a property containsWord could easily be true of one representation
> but not another (e.g. if the representations differ by language). Or,
> more obviously,
> one can meaningfully talk about the media type and content-length of a FR,
> but not necessarily of its originating resource. Volatility is similar: the FR
> is by definition not time-varying, but the resource may be.
>
> I guess this is what Tim's "generic resources" memo [1] is saying.
>
> Are there any properties of a resource that can be inferred
> from its representations? That is, when I do a GET, do I
> (or rather a stupid automated agent) learn anything
> at all about what the resource is? I certainly don't learn anything
> about, say, volatility, unless we're lucky enough to have
> a credible assertion about it in the representation.
> But I would guess that at least for things like authorship
> (aspects of the content), if P and Q are disjoint classes,
> and P applies to a resource's representation's FR, then you can conclude that
> Q does not apply to the resource? That is, if you find that
> any representation's FR's creator list consists of {George Eliot}, then
> you know that the resource's creator list cannot be {Charles Dickens}.
>
> This doesn't hold for volatility: volatile and nonvolatile are disjoint.
>
> Conjecture: It seems that this analysis could continue, e.g. by helping
> one to understand the domain, range, and arity (functional, inverse
> functional, etc.) of various properties such as authorship and volatility
> that one might apply to (information) resources.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html
>
> P.S. Is anyone interested in the AWWSW group any more?
>
>
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 18:18:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 November 2008 18:18:03 GMT