- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:14:06 +0200
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On 16/6/09 21:01, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > On 2009-06 -16, at 12:28, Jonathan Rees wrote: > >> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Jonathan >> Rees<jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:47 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >>>> I think I may understand phlogiston better than "intent" :) so I'm not >>>> very hot on trying to capture "intent". I'll get to an alternate >>>> suggestion in a moment, but first a brief recap. >>> >>> How about if we call it "phlogiston" then. >> >> I think I understand how this works now: The puzzle is, if all of an >> IR's essential characteristics can be conveyed in a message, then how >> can two IRs differ in any way other than in their representations? >> >> Well, to induce the puzzle, you need two assumptions: >> (1) that the message in question (the converyor) is one of the IR's >> representations, as opposed to some other message, >> (2) that a characteristic informative enough to differentiate IRs >> having the same representations - "phlogiston" - must be an essential >> one. > > Is this a counter example: Two different IRs where the representation > you get is identical: > > A version: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wsc-ui-20090226/ > > The latest version: > http://www.w3.org/TR/wsc-ui/ Not sure, but related example that helped with FOAF: Consider two zero-byte files, written by different tools and users on different days. They have the same sha1. This was helpful when thinking through some of the difficulties with saying that foaf:sha1 was OWL:InverseFunctionalProperty, and the different notions of document hidden inside the foaf:Document class. cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 19:28:40 UTC