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

Re: Diagram of it all

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:49:42 -0500
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Message-ID: <1299293382.2525.33547.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 21:03 -0500, 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.
> 
> (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.

Oops!  I should have read ahead.  Sorry I sent my last message before I
saw this one.

David

> 
> 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
> >>
> >
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 02:50:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 5 March 2011 02:52:11 GMT