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: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:15:48 -0500 (EST)
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: valentina presutti <vpresutti@gmail.com>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0811261210060.15458@tribal>

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Jonathan Rees wrote:

>
>
> 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.

I'm a bit confused about cnt:Content myself, but I'm also a bit confused 
about Information Resource vs. Web Resource. A Web Resource is an 
abstraction such a "web-page of the Eiffel Tower," and its obvious that
this should return a HTTP 200 in return to a HTTP GET. 
> 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.

Now, if Information Resources are disjoint with Web Resources and so Web 
accessible things, then what are they? Can you  get a 200 response from an 
Information Resource? Yet, it's not "on" the Web?

 	All we know about this category is  that if you get a HTTP 200 in 
response from a GET on a URI, you are dealing with an information resource. It seems to me like if an 
information resource is *both* something like "Moby Dick the text" (which 
may not give a 200 since it's not on the Web) or something like "Moby Dick 
the text on the web-page" (which obviously should give a 200), then since 
"Moby Dick the text on the web-page" is a Web resource, and since it 
returns a 200, it seems the right answer is that Web Resources should be a 
subclass of Information Resources.

>
> 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
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 17:16:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 November 2008 17:16:27 GMT