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

Re: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-03-29

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:16:32 -0400
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1301577392.2904.16945.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 11:13 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:24 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 15:57 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> >> Agenda: continue review of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/ .
> >
> > Here are some notes that I started collecting a few days ago, but did
> > not finish.  They pertained to the current version at that time, so they
> > may not all still be relevant.  The latest version looks significantly
> > improved.  It looks like you've been putting a lot of good work into it.
> >
> > 1. One of the biggest problems I see is that this document ignores
> > previous work that I have done in this area that is clearly relevant,
> > most notably the following:
> >
> > http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/
> > Quoting from the abstract:
> > [[
> > Various parties are typically involved in the creation and use of a URI,
> > including the URI owner, an RDF statement author, and a consumer of that
> > RDF statement. What principles should these parties follow, to ensure
> > that a consistent resource identity is established and (to the extent
> > possible) maintained throughout that URI's lifetime? This paper proposes
> > a set of roles and responsibilities for establishing and determining a
> > URI's resource identity through its lifecycle.
> > ]]
> 
> "Resource identity" doesn't make any sense to me, 

I think it is basically what you've been calling the "meaning" of a URI,
though the details may differ depending on the world view taken.

> and there are many
> other aspects of that article that I find troubling, so if we refer to
> it, it has to be clear that's it's not an endorsement.

Sounds fine.

> 
> Do you think the issue57 report needs a bibliography? A lot has been
> written on this subject (some of it by me) and I'd rather not have to
> do a literature survey.

I think we should mention other work that we know is closely related.  I
wouldn't bother with a full literature search though.

> 
> > http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html
> > Quoting from the abstract:
> > [[
> > This presentation sheds light on these issues by: . . . proposing a
> > standard operational sequence for determining the intended referent of a
> > URI, even in the the presence of semantic extensions.
> > ]]
> 
> The goal of the issue57 report is to talk about what people actually
> do, not to propose something new.

That is what that ambiguity paper does in Part 3.  It simply documents
the general process that many people are *currently* using (to one
degree or another).  What is *proposed* is merely that the process be
recognized as a *standard* process for determining the intended referent
of a URI.  

thanks

-- 
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 Thursday, 31 March 2011 13:17:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 March 2011 13:17:03 GMT