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

Re: Harvesting from Roy's paper

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:15:19 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTik94t+psWKSQ2b7gfwa2EPkzgBFno7axryUS5of@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Blog post including this material:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://odontomachus.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/are-you-confused-yet-about-the-word-representation/
>>>
>>> :) the last one made me chuckle a bit!
>>>
>>> definitions I that "sit right" with me:
>>
>> It's not a question of "sit right" generally, but specifically for
>> some articulated purpose. I have no trouble at all with an art
>> historian saying that a painting is a representation of a saint.
>> That's just a different sense of the word. The "hateful" thing is when
>> one person takes a statement made assuming one sense, then
>> reinterprets the statement with another sense for propaganda reasons.
>> For example, AWWW might be taken as using "representation" in Roy's
>> sense when actually it's using it in Tim's sense (although I admit you
>> have to read between the lines to infer that - really it may be
>> gingerly using it  in *neither* sense since the argument wasn't
>> resolved at the time of publication).
>>
>> Both Roy and Tim would have done better to coin new words. I'm
>> experimenting with 'specialization' for Tim's sense, although even
>> that would be more a term of art than an adaptation of a common-sense
>> meaning.
>
> Can you just clarify, regardless of what word is suggested/adopted, what the
> meaning of it would be? in-line with TimBL's and Niklaus Wirth's definition?
> to be used in relation to "information resource" and httpRange-14?

I thought I answered this already... but let me try again...

If the relation is R, then its operational meaning would be: If you
see a statement IR P O, then you can conclude a statement CM P O,
whenever CM R IR and P+O is in an approved set; and if you know (or
are willing to believe) CM P O for all CM with CM R IR, then you can
conclude that IR P O, again assuming P+O is in the approved set.

I am very happy to haggle over what's in the approved set; a candidate
list is in the latest version of the ir-axioms note.

Sorry if this seems unsatisfying, but in four years it's the only
thing I've come up with that supports metadata 'curation' of the kind
Tim and I want to encourage. There are many ways to model this
ontologically - IRs are generic individuals, of which CMs are
specializations, and so on - but every such attempt seems to be
inadequate and we always end up with Ruttenberg's Scylla.

Jonathan
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 17:15:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 March 2011 17:15:54 GMT