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

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

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:32:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8091B0.7060207@webr3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
David Booth wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 11:39 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:16 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>>>> 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)?
>>> No, the two cases are, does u refer to IR(u), or to WS(u)?
>>> I thought this is what the first paragraph says... not sure how to
>>> make it more clear.
>> OK, I've tried to fix this problem. Check the latest. The section
>> still needs some work, and could really benefit from input from
>> someone who is proposing any solution similar to this.
> 
> Thanks, the latest text is clearer.  But I think this one will have be
> subdivided into at least three options for how the "distinguishing mark"
> that would indicate that u should refer to WS(u) instead of IR(u) could
> be indicated:
> 
> 1. By the Content-type.  Since *any* content type could be viewed as a
> serialization of RDF, it would have to sanction specific content types
> to have this special meaning, which would inhibit the growth of new RDF
> serializations.

media types are often sent completely wrong, especially with RDF, a 
quick scutter of /user generated/ linked data (for instance peoples foaf 
files) quickly shows up more incorrect and entirely made up media types 
than one would think is possible. Coupled with your own comments, I'd 
quickly suggest this is a non starter.

> 2. In some other HTTP header.  This option would suffer from the same
> drawback as 303: that publishers cannot always control their server
> configurations.  

Agreed. The data publishing specialists can incorporate any wondrous 
arrangement we can conceive, it's the guys who want to publish a foaf 
profile on their personal site or stick a cc snippet on page that need 
considered strongly here.

> 3. In the returned content itself.  But this would be non-monotonic, as
> a reader that did not initially understand the content would take the u
> to refer to IR(u), but later when greater knowledge is gained through
> semantic extensions
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#MonSemExt 
> those assertions would have to be revoked.

if you consider the dereferencing process as being a black-box, then you 
don't see anything but the content; which is arguably often the case.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 10:33:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 March 2011 10:33:21 GMT