W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > April 2009


From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:20:50 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0904140920w6ee51f1cr758b4d8603f3f2b2@mail.gmail.com>
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Some comments on  http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswVocabularyDependencies :

Generally speaking, I've started using the UML convention of an
open-arrowtip arrow for subclass relations. Here's an example from an
OWL draft: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/7/7e/C_entities.gif
(I've always ignored UML, but maybe it's time to learn a thing or two about it.)

Starting at the lower left:
 Response and Request as subclasses of Message: yes.
 rfc2616:Entity is a part of a Message.  (But entities are not
messages - every message has parts that do not belong to the included
entity. e.g. a request has Request-headers, and these are not part of
the entity.)
 rfc2616:Entity is a subclass of awww:Representation  (according to
TimBL, today, and I'm OK with this)
 rfc2616:Representation is the same class as rfc2616:Entity according
to Roy Fielding. I.e. every entity is a representation of some
resource, just not always the one named by the request-URI. Roy (and
HTTPbis) would like to eliminate "entity" in favor of
"representation"; I dislike "representation" and like the precedent of
2616, so would prefer "entity" to "representation".
 We do not know how rfc2616:Resource relates to
awww:InformationResource, so please remove any arc between the (or put
an undirected arc with ?)
 Personally I believe ftrr:IR, awww:IR, and rfc2616:Resource to be
relatable but mutually disjoint, but others may think otherwise, so we
need lots of question marks.
 FixedResource is a subclass of TimeSpecificResource is a subclass of
GenericResource, and the latter is the same as
 If you add the REST classes then you'll be a step closer to my story.

If you want to relate rfc2616:Resource to http:Message (where you have
???) you could invent a new relation "is the subject of" (the resource
is the subject of the message) or "is the requested resource" (those
are the words used in RFC 2616, but they're not good since a DELETE
request does not request the resource) or "is for" (the message is for
the resource) or "concerns" or "is about"... I can't think of a good
name; maybe you can.

I like the idea that you and I will have each have our own diagram,
and we'll both keep iterating until they start looking like one
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 16:21:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:07 UTC