- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:12:12 -0400
- To: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
- Cc: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > > On 3/27/2012 3:27 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Leigh Dodds<leigh@ldodds.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan A Rees<rees@mumble.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> There is a difference, since what is described could be an IR that >>>> does not have the description as content. A prime example is any DOI, >>>> e.g. >>>> >>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000462 >>>> >>>> (try doing conneg for RDF). The identified resource is an IR as you >>>> suggest, but the representation (after the 303 redirect) is not its >>>> content. >>> >>> >>> A couple of comments here: >>> >>> 1. Its not any DOI. I believe CrossRef are still the only registrar >>> that support this, but I might have missed an announcement. That's >>> still 50m DOIs though >> >> >> You are right, it's not all registrars. I meant Crossref DOIs. >> I think Datacite DOIs do this too, but I'm not sure. >> >>> 2. Are you sure its an Information Resource? >> >> >> Nobody can be sure of any such question. I would say it is (as would >> be a variety of FRBR Works or Expressions or Manifestations, and many >> other things besides), but there is nothing I could possibly say that >> would persuade you of this. >> >> This is why, as Tim and I keep saying, you have to forget about the >> "information resource" nonsense and focus instead on the idea of >> content or instantiation. I assume you're aware of what I've written >> on this subject, so it would be pointless for me to say more here. > > > I find this rather remarkable when in your own call [1] you state this Rule > for Engagement: > > "9. Kindly avoid arguing in the change proposals over the terminology that > is used in the baseline document. Please use the terminology that it uses. > If necessary discuss terminology questions on the list as document issues > independent of the 303 question." > > Either the TAG is going to address this terminology head on or it is not. It > is one of the cruxes to the problem, and not just because people are using > it as an excuse to justify 200s. I agree that it is cruxical, and I will do what I can to get the TAG to fix the problem. I thought that's what I said. I've written about this many times on the www-tag list, and even put it as a goal for the session at the F2F. I don't speak for the TAG, though, I'm just a member, so I can't promise anything. If it were up to me I'd purge "information resource" from the document, since I don't want to argue about what it means, and strengthen the (a) clause to be about content or instantiation or something. But the document had to reflect the status quo, not things as I would have liked them to be. I have not submitted this as a change proposal because it doesn't address ISSUE-57, but it is impossible to address ISSUE-57 with a 200-related change unless this issue is addressed, as you say, head on. This is what I've written in my TAG F2F preparation materials. > I will be saying more about this shortly. I thought enough had been said already, but will read with interest. Best Jonathan > Thanks, Mike > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/change-proposal-call.html > > Jonathan A Rees, 29 February 2012 > >> >> I hope the TAG will make a clear statement about this to help people >> stop bickering about this kind of thing. >> >> Often I think people attack "information resource" just because they >> want to use 200s for their linked data descriptions. This is a rather >> indirect tactic, and it misses the whole point of httpRange-14(a), >> which admittedly was a screwup in execution, but not idiotic in >> motivation. >> >> Jonathan >> >>> The DOI handbook [1] >>> notes that while typically used to identify intellectual property a >>> DOI can be used to identify anything. The CrossRef guidelines [2] >>> explain that "[a]s a matter of current policy, the CrossRef DOI >>> identifies the work, not its various potential manifestations...". >>> >>> Is a FRBR work an Information Resource? Personally I'd say not, but >>> others may disagree. But as Dan Brickley has noted elsewhere in the >>> discussion, there's other nuances to take into account. >>> >>> [1]. http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/intro.html#1.6 >>> [2]. http://crossref.org/02publishers/15doi_guidelines.html >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> L. >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 21:12:41 UTC