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

Re: summary so far.

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:30:00 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6E7E98.5020903@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> You're generting stuff more quickly than I can process it. I will be
> selective and not comment on everything that I could.

np, feedback, or a call to discuss, the last iteration:
would be appreciated, and how it maps out to, or affects ir-axioms.

> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> now this is interesting, and I'm unsure exactly how to say it, but if we
>> work from HTTP Resource upwards to URI, such that we consider an HTTP
>> Resource as being a distinct object for which all URIs used to refer to it
>> are bound to that HTTP Resource (the URIs are a property of the HTTP
>> Resource), then we come to the wrong conclusions, and things break.
> No. Only TimBL's requirement that these be distinct breaks. (Maybe
> that's what you mean by "things" but you need to be more specific.)

and RDF's requirement, in fact URIs is it not, that two different URIs 
refer to two different things unless explicitly stated that they refer 
to the same thing?

> There is a perfectly consistent view - one consistent with practice as
> well - that says that the four URIs ought to be used to name the same
> resource, because there's no way for an observer to tell them apart. I
> think Pat has said something similar.

indeed, I'm unsure whether there's any value in that one though, does it 
not see each URI as a temporary reference and what you see is what you 
GET (can only consult RDF, no meaning or naming over time)?

>> In the quoted example above, it would mean that all four URIs are bound to
>> the "HTTP Resource", they all refer to the "same thing", which is clearly
>> inconsistent and just wrong in every way.
> hm. what they refer to depends on who's doing the referring.
> JAR's rule #27: Never treat reference or identification as objective.
> They are always according to someone.


>> each URI is optionally bound to a set of representations over time, each
>> representation is anonymous (only existentially quantified) by default (*)
>> and late bound to the URI as a product of the dereferencing process, thus if
>> one representation has been bound to a specific URI then that URI belongs to
>> the class of things for which representations have been bound. I'll that
>> class of things RB for now (has a [R]epresentation [B]ound).
> RB = domain of 'has reading' or 'has representation'

I'm unsure on the difference TBH, it's a representation associated to a <u>

<u> has_representation [ a Representation ] .
which entails that <u> a :RB .

unsure, because what's 'has reading' ? they seem the same to me.

> Give up on specification and first-principles analysis, and take the
> only important problem to be how/when to write and read metadata, and
> you'll be there.

bar clarifications between us, I'm there now - ready for practical stuff 
of how/when.

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 17:32:00 UTC

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