W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > November 2007

Re: need editing help on the cool URI document

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:13:04 +0000
Cc: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, Max Völkel <voelkel@fzi.de>
Message-Id: <1DBB2744-BDED-4222-BF3C-9B63B4899FC4@cyganiak.de>
To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>


On 28 Nov 2007, at 10:15, Leo Sauermann wrote:
> For this issue, a discussion would be good,
> 	• issue-non-informationresource web document VS information  
> resource. We stand alone (with friendly smiles from timbl) on the  
> term "web document", both the SWD and Noah do not like "web  
> document". As this is W3C note, we should think about dropping the  
> term "web document" from the document and instead only mention it at  
> the beginning and then use "information resource" and "non- 
> information resource". We should phrase a new introduction sentence  
> on the difference, but its tricky to use non-information resource  
> for "concept uris" and "information resource" for webdocument/  
> document uris. At the end, everything is information, also a  
> document and a concept.

I'm strongly opposed to changing this terminology.

"Non-information resource" is possibly the most unfortunate term ever  
used in discussions of web architecture, and we should quickly forget  
that it ever existed. It is a disaster.

"Information resource" is an official engineering term, but  
inappropriate for an introductory document.

The terms we currently use, "thing"/"other resource" and "web  
document" are appropriate, sufficiently well-explained and correct.  
The terminology has support from key TAG members, including TimBL. I  
don't think that anything needs to be changed with regard to these  

> For this, I would ask TAG or SWD for help:
> 	• example rules of thumb how to distinguish between document  
> identifiers and concept identifiers (information and non-information  
> resources). Write some wget examples that do that? Leo thinks we did  
> not cover the crucial point yet: what is the definitive test to get  
> a URI for a non-information resource? Range-14 says: "If an "http"  
> resource responds to a GET request with a 303 (See Other) response,  
> then the resource identified by that URI could be any resource;" Or  
> is this such a problem at all? At the end the RDF:Type says what is  
> what.
> I would put that into the 4.6. implementation section.

I think this has been answered exhaustively in TAG list discussions:  
HTTP status codes can only distinguish between two kinds of URIs,  
"URIs identifying a web document" and "URIs identifying something that  
may be described inside a web document". Note that documents can  
describe other documents, hence documents can be identified by URIs in  
both categories. The question you are asking is not answerable (and  
not that interesting) in web architecture.

Do you think the draft needs clarification in this regard?


> best
> Leo
> -- 
> ____________________________________________________
> DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer
> Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
> Trippstadter Strasse 122
> P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
> D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
> Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
> Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
> Dr. Walter Olthoff
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> ____________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 12:13:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:58 UTC