- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:47:33 -0600
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
On Mar 4, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > Sorry, thatlast message of mine was a bit broken as a graph has an > unbounded number of serializations, so I would have to come up with > some property (among the ones I'm willing to call a 'metadata > property') shared by all serializations, that the graph itself didn't > possess. Well, how about being a serialization, ie something encoded in a byte stream? That is shared by all serializations but false of the graph. Pat > > (When I say "property" in this context I don't mean "RDF property," I > mean something more like DL value restriction - technically those are > classes, not properties.) > > But I bet there is one that is not a mere type error. > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: >> Did you spot the contradiction, in one of your diagrams, to my axioms? >> In my little world, if a resource has only one representation, then >> much of what you say about the representation has to also be true of >> the resource - for example, whether its content contains the letter >> 'x'. This rules out the resource being an RDF graph, and the >> representation being a serialization of it, since for any >> serialization, there are almost certainly characters that occur in it, >> but not in the graph. (You could probably carefully construct a graph >> and a serialization of it that contained the same letters, but then I >> would pick a different metadata property, and go through the argument >> again.) >> >> This shows that TimBL's intuition that RDF graphs mustn't be >> information resources follows logically from a strong stance on >> metadata generation and interpretation. Without a connection as strong >> as this, I'm not sure that the httpRange-14 rule is worth the trouble, >> since theories weaker than this have no "teeth" and are not good for >> much. I wish I were wrong, but I don't think I am. >> >> Jonathan >> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >>> >>> inspired by jonathan's last diagram - attached, and uploaded here: >>> >>> http://i.imgur.com/gzIf0.jpg >>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 02:49:28 UTC