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

Re: Requirements for Any Theory of "Information Resource"

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:45:23 -0500
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1298929523.2525.8952.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 14:36 -0500, David Booth wrote:
> I thought I would take this opportunity to provide some feedback on
> Jonathan's draft: Requirements for Any Theory of "Information Resource".
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/20110225 
. . . 

One more comment:

12. BTW, I like your idea of talking about "authorized" representations
of an IR.  That's what specs like 2616 assume (or specify), but given
the amount of confusion that has been caused by scenarios where hardware
or software malfunctions, or a web site is cracked or mis-configured, I
think it is good to make this explicit.  This also leads toward talking
about what *should* people in various situations do, i.e., what are
their social responsibilities if they are to "play nicely" in the
semantic web community.  For example: 

 - What are the responsibilities of the URI owner, when minting a URI?

 - What are the responsibilities of an RDF statement author, who makes
use of a URI in an RDF statement?

 - How should an RDF consumer determine the intended meaning of a URI
that was used in an RDF statement?

 - What should an RDF statement author do if a URI has been compromised
(e.g., if the domain has been sold and the URI is reused for an
unrelated purpose)?  What should an RDF consumer do?

I think these are the kinds of questions that we should eventually be
able to address.


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 21:45:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 February 2011 21:45:55 GMT