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 20:43:06 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6C08DA.9030805@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> For example, Ruttenberg's Scylla seems a perfectly fine model for IRs.
> Maybe some IRs are Aristotelian abstractions, but other IRs might be
> other things. You would have to argue that the Scylla cannot be the
> right model, for some reason.


> Stop right there.  Over my dead body.  You will not convince me that a
> *Some* information serves to describe things, sure.

*some* is fine by me, this was just a quick mail to summarize an 
alternative way of looking at things.

>> upshot of all of this, is that (1) information resources exist
> I don't understand the reason for saying this, or what its
> consequences are. Would it be OK if I mentally deleted it?

to what are you referring, that "information resource exist"? (if they 
don't how can we say something is an IR??)

> You know this, right?  http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/docs/timeCatalog.pdf

not iirc, will take a good look.

>> 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.
> umm... not sure where authoritative response and URI ownership come
> from.  Don't you just mean nose-following?

probably, with some notion of trust / accountability, authoritative 
representation that would hold in a court of law.

> My feeling is that "web data" can take care of itself but "data about
> web" is a threatened species.

good way of putting it :)


Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 20:43:57 UTC

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