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

RE: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:42:20 +0000
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C832D2464FFE@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Hello Tim, Jonathan,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Berners-Lee
> Sent: 16 June 2009 20:01
> To: Jonathan Rees
> Cc: AWWSW TF
> Subject: Re: Are generic resources intentional?
> 
> 
> 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/

Hmmm... Jonathan was also framing things earlier in terms of trace equivalence... roughly that the sets of available representations (over some multi-dimensional space inc a temporal dimension) were equivalent - not just a point representation equivalence.

So with these two, whilst - in Jonathan's terms - these two resources share some part of their trace, the trace of the latter may well diverge from the trace of the former at some point in time (at least).

> > Relax either assumption, and now Tim's definition of generic resource
> > becomes consistent with AWWW's definition of information resource.
> 
> Good.
> 
> 
> > For example, in the time sheet example, the difference between the two
> > resources - namely, whose time sheet it is - might not be an essential
> > characteristic.
> 
> I don't thing that drilling into the English word "essential" is  useful any further.
> The essence of a document is its content.
> 
> > Important, perhaps; interesting, perhaps;
> > consequential, perhaps; but not essential.
> >
> > Or else the fact of ownership can be conveyed in some message
> > unrelated to the time sheet's representations. This seems less likely
> > to me.
> >
> 
> It happens -- we often for example attach a bunch of diagrams to a message,
> and the significance of them is only conveyed in the cover note.
> "Here are my timesheets -- can you sign them?"
> The timesheet gets a cid: URI in the email as an attachent.
> Another person's timesheet could be identical.
> 
> > Jonathan   (don't imagine I'm being serious)
> 
> 

Stuart
--
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 09:43:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 17 June 2009 09:43:46 GMT