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

Re: proposed change to a spec

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:37:47 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6BC14B.3020301@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Nice try, Nathan, but I'm with David here. I think we have to assume
> that a large amount of metadata has been deployed in good faith that
> would only be true if representations were allowed to reflect
> *partial* state.
> 
> An example might be a blog. I'm not crazy about the practice of
> confusing a blog with its home page but we may have to allow using the
> home page URI to name the blog, with each representation carrying only
> a portion of its state (state = its archive).  This is very similar to
> the database use case in Roy's writings - database = resource,
> representation = query page.
> 
> Another example is using a table of contents with links instead of
> putting the entire document on one page. Another is mobile phone
> 'representations' of Wikipedia pages - those don't carry the entire
> 'state' of the page.
> 
> I reconcile these examples with a more principled view by imagining
> that there must be *some* authorized representation that carries the
> entire state; it just happens to be one that is never composed or
> transmitted. (I knew that Aristophanes would serve me one day!)

so then, we have to go to the inverse IR theory, which is that all 
information resources are Aristotelian abstractions, this could fit if 
one said that the range of properties included the full set of 
representations over time, and all the properties of those 
representations (the hard cover, the draft, the paperback, the pdf, the 
kindle version, the html version on site x and the html sectioned one on 
site y).

Okay, that brings me right back to my "as described by" train of thought

  <u#h> is h as described by <u>
  <u> is information
  information serves to describe things
  descriptions are a set of statements which serve as a (not the) 
description of something
  descriptions can be comprised of statements
  statements are declarations/remarks/presentations of opinion or 
position, offered as evidence that something is true
  for statements to be offered means they must be made/said/offered by 
something
  also means statements are open to interpretation (truth value 
established within a universe of interpretation)

lol this is going to be fun.. so, the RDF <u> GET/200 OK resource 
representation case..

the resource representation received is realization of a Platonic 
abstraction, namely a set of rdf statements. that set of statements 
forms a partial description of one or more things as they were perceived 
at some point in the past (reflects it's state), the set (or a subset) 
of those statements is open to interpretation and the truth value of 
those statements is determined within the universe of interpretation. 
Because the resource representation is but one resource representation 
in a potentially infinite set spanning both values and time, and because 
it's open to interpretation, the resource referred to by <u> is an 
Aristotelian abstraction.

So, when Roy says to me "The clear understandable story is that 
resources are a continuum over time with myriad potential meanings 
depending on one's perspective." and "The Semantic Web, meanwhile, was 
created with no capability to express time, perspective, or change -- it 
is like trying to model life with nothing more than a few still 
pictures." - I've got to agree.

upshot of all of this, is that (1) information resources exist and (2) 
the semantic web doesn't provision for the capability to express time, 
perspective or change. Which are all issues people have w/ RDF and that 
are being discussed at the minute, and which negatively impact linked 
data, such that the RDF semantics and concepts don't really provision 
for a read write web of linked data.

now, ironically, that brings me right back to why I'm here, because I 
tried to use RDF for read write web of linked data and found I couldn't, 
and these issues are the ones that brought me to the point of talking to 
you guys about this.

conclusion: we need rdf 2.0 or "web data" with all these properties and 
tied in with the notion of authorative response, uri ownership and time.

I'm happy with that, and it's been my gut instinct all along.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 15:38:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 February 2011 15:38:35 GMT