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

Re: Http.owl (was RE: JAR conflict for July 7 AWWSW telecon)

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:40:01 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0907060740t52b05cb1wbd3d226bfec95517@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
I've checked in a fixed version, also adding some relationships to
make your TopBraid diagram look better, introducing
"HttpRepresentation" as distinct from an HttpEntity, and so on.

The idea behind the names is that a Correspondence is *of* a
WaRepresentation *to* a Rfc2616Resource (i.e. the wa-representation
corresponds to the Rfc2616Resource). Sorry for the turgid prose.

At some point I liberalized Entity -> WaRepresentation, perhaps under
Tim's influence. I have considered changing WaRepresentation to
"Value" a la Roy Fielding's paper, although I know most people will
find that objectionable, but "entity" doesn't work very well any more
now that the non-resource-specific headers such as Expires: are
excluded, while "representation" is difficult for the usual reasons of
not necessarily representing anything and so on.

I don't know - as you can tell my usual method is to try a term on for
size for a while, and change it every few weeks until I settle on
something I like. I guess this is annoying. Alan suggests we just use
numbers in the URIs and then let the labels drift until they find a
nice place. (Will TopBraid show labels instead of URIs? I'll see if
Protege does.)


On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs,
Bristol)<skw@hp.com> wrote:
> Hello Jonathan,
> The one relation that I can't make sense of (yet) in http.owl is "http:ofWaRepresentation" the associated comment says:
>        "C hasWaRepresentation R when R is the wa-representation that corresponds to the resource in which C inheres during C's lifetime."
> which seems to be a comment about a different relation... Or at least has not kept up with some name changes. Domain and range of "ofWaRepresentation" are "http:Message" and "http:Entity" respectively which has left me confused about the intent of the relation.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Rees [mailto:jar@creativecommons.org]
>> Sent: 06 July 2009 12:12
>> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
>> Subject: Re: JAR conflict for July 7 AWWSW telecon
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs,
>> Bristol)<skw@hp.com> wrote:
>> > I too have a conflict and cannot make the call on 7th July.
>> OK, it looks as if 7 July is canceled.
>> I would still really like to get feedback on
>> http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http.owl
>> and
>> http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/jar-diagram-7.pdf
>> but I don't know if it's worth scheduling an extra call. Let's try
>> email, and I'll meet with Alan R in person about it.
>> I want to start thinking soon about what should be in a report on this
>> effort. Not that the work is anywhere near done, but I hope each of
>> you (active participants) will think about what would be good content
>> and structure, to help guide next steps.
>> Jonathan
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 14:40:42 UTC

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