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

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

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:15:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4D5C84BD.3040909@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> 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!

np - sorry this response took a while, been caught up with clients for a 
few hours!

>> "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 httpRange-14 were withdrawn, (2) I'm talking about only the narrow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.

good points

> 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.

:) cool that clarifies

>> 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.

don't worry I've read them (and most of the related to what we're doing 
docs many times over!), I simply got ahead of myself and was mentally 
thinking about how one could weed out false statements that made the 
interpretation of the graph wrong whenst applying these axioms (when 
merging graphs from different sources etc) - do ignore.

>> 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.

glad to hear that's what your looking for - but wasn't HTTP created by 
removing axioms from the FTP model, not adding? essentially, AIUI, HTTP 
removed the axioms your adding / outlining at the minute..

> 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/ ?

I'm unsure tbh, in many respects something which you can GET can always 
be classed as an "information resource" (or source of information), but 
in many cases people don't use that URI to mean the information 
resource, they use it to mean the "Search Engine" or in another case 
"The Film" or "The Song" and so forth. By all means add extra axioms, 
and I'm sure we can get some proofs in the model that they are true - 
but that'll just be one "view" of the world and may well not match 
reality, or be technically optimized to deploy.

I feel like I need to remind that i did violently defend and back up the 
httpRange-14 decision and IR theory for a very long time, and very 
publicly - but now I have to confess that my view has changed, and that 
now feel that names are used to refer to things, and whatever most 
people agree a thing names, is what it names - web arch and rdf simply 
have to accept that and make it work, not constrain it.

However, I also respect you, and those that made the IR decision in the 
first place, so happy to go along with proving or disproving it - my own 
theory is that we can both simultaneously prove and disprove it, 
depending on which way were looking at the situation, or what we're 
trying to achieve, or what use-case we are considering.


Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 02:16:29 UTC

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