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

Re: AWWSW telecon, Tues Feb 3

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:34:29 -0500
Cc: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1F68D15A-746E-41FE-B900-85304F4CEA82@creativecommons.org>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>

How would this be useful?

Ambiguity in our context can be treated with RDF and OWL semantics:  
you can have multiple models of the same set of axioms, and the choice  
of model is up to whoever is trying to interpret the axioms. Meaning  
is expressed formally to the extent you have the cleverness and  
endurance to formulate it that way, and using rdfs:comment (or  
specification documents) otherwise; the former gives a way to exclude  
interpretations, while the latter might influence someone to choose  
between the ones that remain. I would prefer we stick with the problem  
of figuring out what axioms should be put into the inference pot,  
based on the HTTP (REST, etc.) protocol, rather than get into the  
problem of modeling RDF or OWL semantics in RDF or OWL, or inventing  
protocols for communicating, attributing, authorizing etc. intended  
denotation, which might be interesting but as far as I know are not on  
the table here.

On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:

> 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 22:35:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 30 January 2009 22:35:09 GMT