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

Re: project outline

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:30:46 -0500
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1295364646.2874.11678.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Here is our revised project outline, per today's meeting:
[[
Project outline:

- The work product is to be a set of logical predicates
  (classes and properties), expressed in OWL, together with
  explanation and rationale.

- Include a class of 'representations', and the members of
  that class would have properties, such as content, media
  type, language.

- Introduce 'information resource' as something that 'has
  representations' (different ones at different times) and
  pretty much nothing else.  (maybe some 'phlogiston')

- Introduce a term for the relationship (according to HTTP)
  between the target resource and authorized representation,
  and another term for the domain of that relationship.

- Talk about properties of IRs as a way of explaining "purpose".
  "Purpose" of IR idea = saying things about them. Content
  invariants (e.g. author, title, publisher, date, subject,
  media type, language, scribe: ). Lawful variation (weather
  in Oaxaca, news.google.com, blogs).  Also consider: Versions
  and stability (e.g. as practiced at w3.org).

- Suggest ways to interpret various situations in terms of this
  ontology.  Files as IRs. HTTP as revealing information about
  IRs (their representations). Expires: , Content-location:
  , and so on.  Status codes.

- Check against use cases (which we'll have to re-collect,
  I think they're scattered)

- Comparison with other work (IRW, IAO, etc): where we know
  about relationships to other work it should be mentioned.

- Choose class and property URIs and prepare OWL file and
  report.


Separate work items, potentially requiring additional task
  forces:

- What HTTP redirects tell us (in terms of the QO).  Additional
  predicates, if needed.  "Cafeteria" approach, meaning offer
  a choice of ways to interpret redirects in the QO.

- The 'describes' relation. Interpreting 303 and RDF-based
  fragid definitions.  [Agreed 18-Jan-2011: Leave 303 to either
  nose following or redirects work item.]

- Optional: Fragid semantics in general.  [Agreed 18-Jan-2011:
  Put in separate section]

- Optional: Link relations (Link: and /.well-known/host-meta)
  [Agreed 18-Jan-2011: Put link relations with 303 for the
  moment.]

]]




On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 19:43 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Thoughts on finishing the current (and maybe last) phase of work
> 
> - The work product is to be a set of logical predicates (classes and
>   properties), expressed in OWL, together with explanation and
>   rationale.
> 
> - Decide that we are documenting the design of web architecture, not
>   reality.  So this is not an ontology project, really, as it is not
>   empirically based.  Call it a 'quasi-ontology' (QO).  It can be
>   applied to reality only to the extent that reality adheres to the design.
> 
> - Deal with 'representations': content, media type, language.
> 
> - Introduce 'information resource' as something that 'has
>   representations' (different ones at different times) and pretty much
>   nothing else.  (maybe some 'phlogiston')
> 
> - Talk about properties of IRs as a way of explaining purpose.
>   Purpose of IR idea = saying things about them.  Content invariants
>   (e.g. author, title, publisher, date, subject, media type, language,
>   ...).  Lawful variation (weather in Oaxaca, news.google.com, blogs).
> 
> - Optional topic: Versions and stability (e.g. as practiced at w3.org).
> 
> - Suggest ways to interpret various situations in terms of the QO.
>   Files as IRs.  HTTP as revealing information about IRs (their
>   representations).  Expires: , Content-location: , and so on.
>   Status codes.
> 
> - What HTTP redirects tell us (in terms of the QO).  Additional
>   predicates, if needed.  "Cafeteria" approach, meaning offer a choice
>   of ways to interpret redirects in the QO.
> 
> - The 'describes' relation.  Interpreting 303 and RDF-based fragid
>   definitions.
> 
> - Optional: Fragid semantics in general.
> 
> - Optional: Link relations (Link: and /.well-known/host-meta)
> 
> - Check against use cases (which we'll have to re-collect, I think
>   they're scattered)
> 
> - Disclaimers (when this breaks down)
> 
> - Comparison with other work (IRW, IAO, etc)
> 
> - Choose class and property URIs and prepare OWL file and report.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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 Tuesday, 18 January 2011 15:31:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 January 2011 15:31:19 GMT