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

Re: Diagram of it all

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:54:56 -0600
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Message-Id: <C14E45AE-12CA-46C7-BE07-D02A1082B482@ihmc.us>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>

On Mar 4, 2011, at 7:52 PM, Jonathan Rees 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'.

Hmmm. I confess to not being entirely uptodate with your axioms, but this sounds like it would rule out a lot more than just RDF graphs. For example, take a work like Joyce's 'Ulysses', as opposed to a particular copy of it. There is no single universally accepted text for this work, as there are several versions of it and much controversy over which is 'correct'. Nevertheless, everyone agrees that all printed versions are indeed versions of Ulysses. I guess in a case like this you will have to say that there are several works all with the same title? Seems like overkill to me. 

> 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 thought that the main point of http-range-14 was to not get things like web pages confused with things like people. This does not seem to require your kind of nicety about identity criteria for information resources. Or has the debate got further along while I wasnt paying attention?

Pat



>  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 02:55:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 5 March 2011 02:55:35 GMT