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 11:42:42 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0907060842m7fe47b74y901a71a273178f10@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs,
Bristol)<skw@hp.com> wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>> 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.)
>
> Yes it does... Though there don't seem to me to be too many in http.owl (the one that I originally downloaded).

Just added some labels for you. -Jonathan

> Stuart
> --
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Rees [mailto:jar@creativecommons.org]
>> Sent: 06 July 2009 15:40
>> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
>> Cc: AWWSW TF
>> Subject: Re: Http.owl (was RE: JAR conflict for July 7 AWWSW telecon)
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> 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)
>> >> Cc: AWWSW TF
>> >> 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 15:43:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 July 2009 15:43:23 GMT