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

RE: AWWSW telecon, Tues Feb 3

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:47:04 +0000
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD2B872281385A439B98164F5351E6DD41432BE05D@GVW1144EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>

I think it would be useful to consider how ambiguity (a/k/a URI collision)
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
should be described in RDF.  For example, how would one describe the meaning of the URIs http://fred.example/fluffy and http://daphny.example/fido in the following scenarios:

1. Fred owns http://fred.example/fluffy and declares that "http://fred.example/fluffy ambiguously denotes either my cat Fluffy or my web page that describes Fluffy". 

2. Daphny owns http://daphny.example/fido and declares (perhaps using different communicateion mechanisms, or in different ways):
 a. http://daphny.example/fido denotes my dog, whose name is Fido.
 b. http://daphny.example/fido denotes a web page describing my dog.  Do you like my cool use of xhtml?

 ----------------------

To my mind #1 and #2 are very similar, and the ambiguity can be modeled in N3 something like this:

@prefix decl: <http://t-d-b.org?http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/#> .
@prefix e: <http://example#> .
@prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>.

{
  {
  <http://fred.example/fluffy> a e:Cat .
  <http://fred.example/fluffy> e:hasName "Fluffy" .
  } 
e:disjunction
  {
  <http://fred.example/fluffy> a e:WebPage .
  <http://fred.example/fluffy> e:describes "a cat named Fluffy" .
  } .
} decl:declares "http://fred.example/fluffy" .

How would others express this in n3?



David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 1:15 PM
> To: public-awwsw@w3.org
> Subject: AWWSW telecon, Tues Feb 3
> 
> 
> Agenda as below. More use cases please -- or be prepared to declare  
> there
> is no more semantics to be squeezed out of RFC 2616 and we 
> should move  
> on
> to another regime such as REST (i.e. what you want
> to impute to the sender if you're willing to believe they're using  
> that regime).
> 
> If you've forgotten what this is about see the top of 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswVocabulary
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
> > Date: January 17, 2009 9:34:32 AM EST
> > To: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
> > Subject: AWWSW telecon, Tues Jan 20
> >
> > Agenda is continuing as before...  but I really really would like to
> > find another use case where we can determine through formal (or less
> > desirably, informal) reasoning that an HTTP response says something
> > that is not true (or contradicts other intelligence). Ontology
> > building has to combine speculation with application, and 
> we've been a
> > bit heavy on the speculation.
> >
> > Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 19:48:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 30 January 2009 19:48:16 GMT