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

Re: Candidate message to TAG re httpRange-14 resolution

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:15:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4D46B5E5.30401@webr3.org>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Harry Halpin wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>> Jonathan makes an important claim in the center of his case:
>>> "...  because most useful
>>>> predicates are either defined only on information resources or
>>>> undefined on information resources.  "
>>> I wish (and once believed) that this were true, but unfortunately it is
>>> not. The most obvious example is simply a date of creation, which can
>>> apply both to a material thing (eg a date of birth) and to an
>>> information resource (eg a birth certificate.)
>>> OK, he does say 'most', but the point is that there are some important
>>> ones that this is not true of, and this is enough to rather damage the
>>> case for tolerating the ambiguity.
>> Completely agree.  I was looking for a way to acknowledge the
>> existence of the argument without agreeing with it, and didn't do a
>> good job. Shall I just not mention it?
> I mean, if someone is going to make ambiguous statements, we can't stop
> them. The sensible thing to do here is to encourage people to use less
> ambiguous statements with clearer intentions, i.e. a "birthDate" vs
> "documentCreation" predicate.

does that also apply to the html version of moby dick case? 
documentCreation applies to?
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 13:22:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:08 UTC