W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > February 2011

Re: AWWSW vs. httpRange-14

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 02:16:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4D55ED69.5050204@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> What I mean is, that currently when someone wants to say that a
> document has a title or a license, they use the document's URI (the
> URI from which they GET the document or its "representation") as the
> subject of an RDF statement.
> 
> I have interpreted the httpRange-14 resolution as reflecting a
> suggestion that people use these URIs in this way (and not in some
> other way). This has been widely assumed, e.g. FOAF and CC REL.
> 
> This practice has been questioned, so we have to consider other
> options in order to do an honest appraisal of the alternatives.

I'd also question the practise, in fact I'd say that referring to a 
representation by the URI where you GET it is dangerous and should be 
discouraged.

Thus more than happy to push doing an honest appraisal of the 
alternatives, it would be time well spent (imho).

However, I'm also aware that the httpRange-14 resolution was a rule to 
cater for perceived social conventions at the time, a reversal of that 
rule would simply be changing it to suit perceived social conventions at 
this time, social convention changes, and convention is different within 
different social groups.

> So it sounds like you're in the don't-be-unclear camp with Alan,
> Harry, and Larry. Am I the only one here trying to explain and
> maintain the value of the current investment in metadata?

If it helps I'm in both camps, and my own little one, don't-be-unclear 
is good and works in some situations, in other situations (most of the 
web) ambiguity is inherent, and in both sets of situations, rules and 
ambiguity are exploited.

> I would think one way to go would be to explain why these metadata
> assertions work socially, and under what limitations, and then try to
> build consensus around whatever it is we learn. If not then we'll have
> to retract every bit of advice ever given about writing metadata in
> RDF.

What has been said cannot be unsaid. I agree that we have to focus on 
how things work socially, and to that end httpRange-14 is orthogonal.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Saturday, 12 February 2011 02:17:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 12 February 2011 02:17:24 GMT