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

Re: please review issue-57 document draft before Tuesday telcon

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:16:57 -0400
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1300195017.1954.34354.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 21:06 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Not perfect but here it is...
> 
> "How to refer to something using a URI"
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20110313/



00. We've accumulated a lot of unfinished documents.  I think we need to
focus in more on *one* of them -- How about this one?  -- and finish it.

0. Limit the scope to RDF.  That's the use case that has been motivating
this, and we'll get more clarity if we can be more specific.

0. A summary table of options may help, with links to 

1. In sec 1.2 Glossary, in some cases you talk of "specializations" and
in other cases you talk of "versions", and "specialization" is not
defined.

2. Sec 2 in general: I think this section could benefit from referring
to the roles (URI owner, statement author, consumer) described in
http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/#roles


3. Sec 2.2 this sentence doesn't make sense to me, because AFAIK,
Alice's account does not describe a document, it describes a mynah: "The
referent is not the account that Alice publishes, it is the document
that Alice's account describes."  

4. Regarding section 3.5:
[[
3.5 Cite your sources
Whenever using a URI to refer to something, provide a link to the
document that carries an account of the URI's meaning. This is the
approach taken by OWL (owl:imports). The rdfs:definedBy property could
also be used for this purpose. 

Both of these properties beg the question in that they do not say how to
figure out what the target URI refers to. 
]]

Do you mean that they beg question because they do not specify what to
do after one has obtained the document that carries an account of the
URI's meaning?   Or do you mean that they beg the question because they
do not say how to determine the document's URI, for example in a case
like this:

  <x> rdfs:definedBy _:aBnode .

5. In sec 3.7:
[[
[Is anyone, in practice, deploying 303 redirects to a "primary topic"
page not mentioning the URI to be accounted for, rather than to be a
document that explicitly mentions the URI?]
]]
The delegation of authority at http://thing-described-by.org/ says
(among other things):
http://thing-described-by.org/#Delegation_of_Authority
[[
b. If dereferencing u yields content that does not explicitly specify
what resource http://thing-described-by.org/?u names, then
http://thing-described-by.org/?u names the primary subject of that
content.
]]

6. Sec 3.6 'Hash URI' needs to say something about the media type, since
at present the AWWW delegates authority for defining the meaning of the
URI to the media type.

7.  Sec 5.7 "Overload dereference, and use response properties to
distinguish the two cases" mentions "two cases", so I looked back to see
what the "two cases" are.  I think the two cases are these:

Given a document d that is hosted at URI u and describes subject s, what
conventions should be used to refer to d and s?  I.e., for a given
dereferenceable URI u, what conventions should be used to refer to IR(u)
and WS(u)?




-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 13:17:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 March 2011 13:17:25 GMT