Re: Annotating IR of any relevance? (httpRange-14)

Giovanni,

I received an offline email with a similar suggestion. It would be really really useful if you or someone could submit a Change Proposal to www-tag@w3.org through the process described at [1] which basically said something like:

  The representation from a probe URI is a URI documentation carrier for
  the probe URI. For clarity, there is no implication that the probe URI
  refers to an information resource.

  Assertions may be made about the representation from a probe URI in two
  ways:

    1. properties listed within the Representation Property Registry are
       used exclusively to make statements about representations of the
       probe URI; for a property P in this registry, a statement of the 
       form <U> <P> X, is taken to have its subject actually be all possible
       representations of <U>

    2. given a statement <V> :representationOf <U>, V is understood to
       refer to a representation of U; V is typically a blank node

Without a Change Proposal submitted to the TAG, the TAG will not have this option on the table for discussion. If you would like me to help with that, I can.

Thanks,

Jeni

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/change-proposal-call.html

On 26 Mar 2012, at 08:51, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:

> Is annotating IRs is of *any value practical and role today* ?
> 
> Anything of value and core interest to  wikipedia, imdb, bestbuy, bbc,
> geonames, rottentomatoes, lastfm, facebook, whatever. is a  NIR.
> 
> We are talking people, products
> 
> Everything on the LOD cloud (for what it matters) its all NIR
> 
> Even pictures, comments, and text are easiy seen and BEST INTERPRETED as NIR
> 
> they're not just the bytes they're composed of, they're the full
> record of their creation, the concept of message.
> a facebook picture is a full record of content, comments, tags,
> multiple resolutions etc.
> The mere stream OF BYTES (the IR) IS JUST A DeTAIL that if it REALLY
> needs to be annotated, ... it can. no problem, with proper attributes
> "hasResolution, hascopyright" ok i guess that refers to a IR then.
> 
> Image (NIR), hasResolution, hasCopyright, andHeyThisIsTheDownloadUrl
> (your IR url here)
> 
> So the proposal is to forget immediately the whole distinction and
> anything else than a simple 200:
> 
> * Only return 200,
> * As a default, clients known that they're dealing with Non IR
> * if you really have to annotate some IR for very low lever purposes
> then you do it anyway with proper attributes/ontologies .. which
> clients will know and act accordingly.
> 
> And we're back into reality, you're compatible with opengraph, schema.org,
> 
> I apologize for starting a new thread but i feel the discussion is
> very easily skewed by the fact that those who have time to answer
> often are the most prone to make rules as complicated as "it needed"
> and to accept them as such. But this is not the way the world goes. Or
> that anything that's meant to reach the world as large can be.
> 
> Gio
> 
> 

-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 08:25:45 UTC