W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Proposed rewrite for section 3.1

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:07:10 +0000
To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, www-tag@w3.org, W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bwsnwjpy9.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Leo Sauermann writes:

> It is important to understand that using URIs, it is possible to
> identify both a thing (which exists outside of the web) and a web
> document describing the thing. For example the person Alice is
> described on her homepage. Bob may not like the look of the homepage,
> but fancy the person Alice. So two URIs are needed, one for Alice, one
> for the homepage or a RDF document describing Alice. The question is
> where to draw the line between the case where either is possible and
> the case where only descriptions are available.

Good, I like that.

> According to W3C guidelines ([AWWW], section 2.2.), we have an Web
> document (there called information resource) if all its essential
> characteristics can be conveyed in a message. Examples are a Web page,
> an image or a product catalog. The URI identifies both the entity and
> indirectly the message that conveys the characteristics.
> In HTTP, a 200 response code should be sent when a Web document has
> been accessed, a different setup is needed when publishing URIs that
> are meant to identify entities.

I think, crucially, you should end the last sentence above "are meant
to identify entities which are _not_ Web documents".

> thank you for the input!

You're welcome.

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH45bikjnJixAXWBoRAi3gAJ4zk7tf2EJkwhAkzk8ibiZ28PLHngCfZXeo
BZF9cHivlpVf3eVB0wAvSWQ=
=BrkL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 11:07:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 March 2008 11:07:49 GMT