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

Re: draft: Requirements for Any Theory of 'Information Resource'

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:44:00 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinig-=yw3vQSSNJhTT6n=OsOp27jHGu4jm5xDBY@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/2011/axioms-2011-02.html
>> This expands on the 'predictive metadata' thing I wrote.
> good write up

Thanks for the quick turnaround!

> "bound to" is very weak imho, I'd swap it read:
>  (def) An 'information resource' is 'identified by' a URI iff every
>  simple IR that is 'relevant to' the URI 'is a reading of' the
>  information resource.

Well, (1) "identified by" would be a mismatch to web terminology if
httpRange-14 were withdrawn, (2) I'm talking about only the narrow
situation involving dereferenceable URIs, not mailto: and 303s, and
(3) I avoid the term like the plague because I don't know what it
means. So I'll stick with "bound to" since it's less familiar in the
context, but will consider alternatives.  Earlier I had "accessed via"
but that implies a protocol, and that's an unnecessary assumption.

Anyhow here's the counterexample:

  Could it be that an authority,
  who <i>means</i> to bind the IR to the URI, just feels insecure
  and doesn't want to be held responsible for saying that a simple IR
  is a reading of the IR?  And that they would be happy to authorize a
  reading <i>after</i> being convinced that it was indeed a reading?

Can you think of an example where things would go wrong with the weaker axiom?

I've reworked that entire section - no more need for 'carries' or
'relevant to' in the current version.

> the following axiom appears to be wrong, "for any set of", any set?
>  For any set of 'simple IRs' there exists an IR that has all of the
>  simple IRs as readings.

Have made this more explicit.

> and perhaps it would be worth swapping 'RDF graph' to 'RDF Statement' in the
> final axiom.

Umm... we need to talk... the idea that it is graphs, not statements,
that have meaning is absolutely key to both RDF and OWL semantics. If
you haven't read the RDF semantics rec I recommend you go do so now -
several times over.

> finally, and apologies for this, but the set of axioms you've got there
> seems to perfectly fit FTP (they've actually helped me considerably to see
> that this view, the IR and httpRange-14 view of the web, sees it as being
> web of files/documents relating to exactly the way it was predominantly used
> back when it was all static docs that were ftp'd to servers - makes sense).

Exactly what I'm looking for - degenerate and pathological models. If
they perfectly fit FTP that says I need some additional axioms.

E.g., there exists a simple IR that has a content-type; and there
exists an IR that has at least two distinct readings.

I guess the axiom I need is that the URI for some really modern,
exotic, pathological web page is bound to an IR.  Maybe
http://google.com/ ?


> Best,
> Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:52:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:09 UTC