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

Draft progress report feedback

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:15:39 +0000
Message-ID: <4D3A2FBB.2000208@webr3.org>
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Hi All,

I tried focussing on the Draft Progress Report from 25 May 2010 - 
found it very interesting, it really helped and my feedback gets quite 
interesting lower down (I hope!)

   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/web-semantics-20100525.html

snippets indented, comments outdented(sp?)..

   A single RR can be W-related to multiple Things, i.e. there exist T,
   T', R such that W(T,R) and W(T',R) and T != T'.

true, provable

   there exist T, R, R' such that W(T,R) and W(T,R') and R != R'.

true, provable

   For example, it might be useful to assume W(<data:,x>, R1) where R1
   is an RR with content-type text/plain and content "x", even when no
   GET/200 exchange has stated this.

this worries me, data URIs can be seen to have properties which other 
URIs do not have, they aren't just names or identifiers, they are 
identities, not "a name" but "the name".

   A trivial consequence of the stipulation is that if W(<U>,R) is true
   (i.e. if a GET U/200 R exchange is 'true') then <U> is a Thing. But
   this is just because the domain of W is Thing (or a subclass).

GET U/200 R also implies that there are now two identical Rs in 
existence - is W(<U>,R) a property of R?

   No number of GET U/200 R exchanges can tell you exactly what <U> is
   they do not "identify" <U> in the dictionary sense of "establish the
   identity of someone or something".

true

   Note on time
   Although W is time-sensitive, we'll ignore time as it is not helpful
   to account for it right now and notationally it gets in the way.

also agent sensitive? (auth)

   or we might switch to temporal logic.

I've been looking for some good books on temporal logic and CTL*, do 
any of you have any recommendations?

   suppose W(T,R) implies that T is in WR.

   TimBL: RR is disjoint with WR

true, and W is a proper subclass of WW, where WW is the class of all 
relationships / properties / logical predicates.
WW is disjoint with RR
WW is disjoint with WR
is W a proper subclass of WW, or is W the class of all relationships / 
properties / logical predicates - this may be important.

   ?: Logical predicates (i.e. classes and so-called "properties") are
   not in WR (that is, WR is a subclass of owl:Thing)

yes, see above

   Mark Nottingham / Lisa Dusseault: at least some logical relations
   are in WR [need reference to thread]

disagree, logical predicates, strings, numbers, RDF graphs, none of 
those are WRs.

   TimBL: members of WR are not determined by their W-relations. I.e.
   one might have W(T,R) iff W(T',R) for all R in RR, yet T != T'
   (time sheet example, recall AWWSW discussions a while back of the
   "trace" of a resource and of "phlogiston") (Pat: "sad, if true")
   (JAR: If members of WR must have phlogiston, this means that data:
   URIs can't refer to members of WR!)

.. see below..

   None of these axioms (except the conflicting ones about literary
   works) provides much help with classifying metadata subjects (those
   treated in DC, FRBR, and so on) as being in WR or not in WR.

disagree, surely if members of WR are not determined by their 
W-relations, then W(T,R) cannot imply that T is in WR - thus meaning 
that WR cannot be defined?

   Dan C's speaks-for theory: W(T,R) means T 'says' R in the sense of
   ABLP logic [need ref]. This means that T is a "principal" - anything
   that's not a principal can't be in WR - and that R is attributable
   to ("said" by) T, which ought to place a constraint on W.

yes, there's also "speaks-to", and all of this is missing the agent, 
the one requesting - if you change the scenario to POST then that 
agent, whatever it is, "speaks-for" as well.

   The relation to ABLP logic, which would turn T into an ambient
   authority, suggests vulnerability to confused deputy attacks.

true

   This in turn suggests that what we infer from W(T,R) should follow
   only from verifiable (encrypted or signed) statements residing in R
   and not from anything we know about T.

trust is in the domain of the agent, or when the method is 
unsafe/stateful then trust is in the domain of T, T has to "believe".

which implies that T is an Agent, and R is a speech act.
so:
  - AA (the class of all agents) is a proper subclass of T
  - RR is a proper subclass of SA (speech act)

so the relationship previously referred to as W(T,R) is actually 
W(A,R), where A is an Agent, R is a speech act, and <U> (when used) is 
a name for A.

further RR is an "answer", which entails the presence of a "question", 
so there must be another subclass of SA which must take this in to 
account, so I'll call QQ the subclass of SA which are "questions".

so, what we're actually dealing with here is a conversation, where we 
have two agents (A1, A2) and both can ask questions, give answers, or 
refuse to answer (won't cover this last one here).

I'd suggest we have
   W1(A1,Q) - an agent asking a question
   W2(A2,R) - the other agent answering the question (in GET/200 case)

and.. my brains starting to hurt, but it looks like..

   (A1,Q) W (A2,R)

I better stop here.. thoughts?

Best,

Nathan
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2011 01:17:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 22 January 2011 01:17:56 GMT