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

Re: [Moderator Action] Re: Discussing Valentina's and Aldo's work during AWWSW Telecon?

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:57:11 -0500
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Message-Id: <05C64A4F-E0C9-47E7-97BB-DBCDE5E10BA8@creativecommons.org>
To: valentina presutti <vpresutti@gmail.com>


On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:36 PM, valentina presutti wrote:
>
> - we have put cnt:Content under ire:WebResource (which is what  
> Jonathan calls Accessible, i.e. AWWWIR)

NO - these are completely different! See [1]. Yes, I think WebResource  
may coincide with Accessible = the things Pat says can be "accessed",  
which happens to coincide with "resource" in the HTTP/1.1 sense. I  
would say such things are concrete, ultimately physical, things, sort  
of like physical books - connected to space and time.

But I defined "AWWWIR" to mean whatever AWWW means (which I've never  
been able to discern). Although I would be reluctant to say how these  
things relate to anything else, Tim, David, and I have now all agreed  
at least that whatever an AWWWIR is, it is very likely *not* an HTTP/ 
1.1 resource = Accessible (this last equation is something we agreed  
made sense IIRC).

Your "information object" seems to be not incompatible with an overlap  
with, or subsumption of/by, AWWWIR.

Too busy to turn this into OWL or a diagram right now, but that is  
what's needed, I think.

(Where I say in [1] "I am reliably informed that ... the things named  
by 200-yielding URIs whose naming authorities have said nothing in  
particular about what the URIs denote, are AWWWIRs" this is not really  
something I stand by - it was not meant to be fully serious, but  
rather to playfully continue an argument I've been having with one  
member of the group. Right now I would neither agree nor disagree with  
such a statement.)

I'd still like to see what, at the outset of AWWSW, everyone agreed  
would be desirable: Ontologies reflecting each world view (David, Tim,  
Pat, me, AWWW, HTTP/1.1, IRE, ...). We can then connect these together  
with sensible relations, and remove redundant parts, as we discover  
relationships on which we may have agreement.

Sorry to not know what you mean by cnt:Content - are these things  
abstract (like numbers, HTTP/1.1 entities, or editions of books) or  
concrete (like a numeral as written on a piece of paper, the contents  
of some part of a computer's memory, or the things that's mean when  
someone conjures an ISBN)? If the former then this class is disjoint  
with Accessible.

Jonathan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Nov/0025.html
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 16:58:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 November 2008 16:58:01 GMT