- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:56:37 -0500
- To: "John Black" <JohnBlack@kashori.com>
- Cc: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Linking Open Data" <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
>Chris Bizer wrote: >> >>Hi Frank, Pat and Bernard, >> >>thanks a lot for all your ideas and comments. >> >>So what we are having on the table right now is a definition: >> >>"The term XXX refers to the description of a >>non-information resource that a client obtains >>by dereferencing a specific URI that identifies >>this non-information resource." >> >>and various proposals for the term: >> >>Pat Hayes: >>- represented description >>- redirected description >>- redescription >>- transmit >>- infon >> >>Frank Manola >>- associated representation >> >>Bernard Vatant: >>- description > >If you want to maintain the idea of >"identifying" a resource, then I would suggest >the term "Definite Description", >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description, >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports/des.html >that means something like this: a set of logical >statements about a universe of discourse such >that there is one individual or one set of >individuals, and only one individual or set of >individuals, about which all those statements >are true. I would strongly suggest not doing this, on the grounds that the thing we are talking about will almost never be a definite description. It is dangerous to co-opt precise terms from another discipline unless you are prepared to accept the likely consequences that they bring with them. > >I once began to compile a list of all the ideas >I came across for what you should name what you >get back, >http://kashori.com/wikiPim/BoundedDescriptions: >Among the terms I thought were interesting were >"Discriminant Description", "Concise Bounded >Description", "Rdf Neighbor", "Ctx Meaning", >"Wordnet Synset", "Web Proper Name". It will almost never be a Wordnet Synset or a proper name, either. Again, these are precise technical terms. Pat > >John >www.kashori.com > >>Some (of course subjective) comments: Like >>Bernard already stated, "redescription" sounds >>temporal. You describe something, then you >>redescribe it afterwards. Transmit and infon >>sound like Sci-Fi to me. Redirected description >>is a good explanation of what is happening, but >>maybe a bit to technical, process-oriented. >>I think Frank's term "representation" does not >>work from the technical side, as you get >>redirected to an information resource, which >>has a representation and this representation >>contains the data we are talking about. But the >>representation of this information resource >>might also contain lots of data about other >>resources. For instance, when you think about a >>vocabulary definition as in the "Best Practices >>for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" guide >>http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/. I like >>Frank's idea of using the word "associated" as >>this term in also used throughout the TAG >>"Dereferencing HTTP URIs" document >>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14. >> >>So, when I try to merge all these ideas and >>thoughts, I end up with "associated >>description". >> >>What do you think about this term? >>Anybody strongly disagreeing? >> >>A problem that remains with this term is that >>it is rather technical and therefore does not >>work well as a replacement for data item in the >>introduction of our tutorial. >> >>For instance: The sentence "A basic tenet of >>Linked Data is to use RDF links to interlink >>data items from different data sources." would >>become "A basic tenet of Linked Data is to use >>RDF links to interlink associated descriptions >>from different data sources." Cough, cough :-) >> >>But anyhow, the term "associated description" >>will work in the remaining technical chapters >>of the tutorial and we can save ourselves in >>the introduction by saying "A basic tenet of >>Linked Data is to use RDF links to interlink >>data from different data sources". >> >>Cheers >> >>Chris >> >> >>-- >>Chris Bizer >>Freie Universität Berlin >>Phone: +49 30 838 54057 >>Mail: chris@bizer.de >>Web: www.bizer.de >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org> >>To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> >>Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>; >><www-tag@w3.org>; <semantic-web@w3.org>; >>"Linking Open Data" >><linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu> >>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:44 PM >>Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and Linked Data >> >> >> >>Chris-- >> >>This probably indicates that I haven't gone back far enough in the >>prior discussion (or still don't understand various details of the >>Web architecture), but what's wrong with "representation"? That is, >>you're asking for "a term for "the information which you get about >>the thing identified by it when you look up a URI". I thought what >>you got back when you dereferenced a URI was a "representation". And >>I thought that the difference between dereferencing the URI of an >>information resource vs. that of a non-information resource is that: >> >>(a) for a non-information resource there's supposed to be some >>indirection messaging that goes on between the original dereferencing >>and you getting a representation back, and >> >>(b) the representation you get back doesn't contain all the >>"essential characteristics" of the identified resource. >> >>But you still get a representation back. That is in fact what your >>tutorial says. Under the heading "Dereferencing HTTP URIs", the last >>sentence of the bullet that describes what happens for non- >>information resources says "In a second step, the client dereferences >>this new URI and *gets a representation* describing the original non- >>information resource" [my emphasis]. >> >>I think I understand the sort of distinction you're getting at, >>something like, as Pat suggests, the difference between getting a >>copy (of sorts) of the thing itself vs. getting a "description" (in >>some sense) of it, but if that's it, I'm not sure an entirely new >>piece of terminology is what's needed. Operationally the only way we >>have of knowing whether a URI names an information resource or a non- >>information resource is (at least in the tutorial) whether >>redirection happens when we dereference it. In the scenarios we're >>talking about, the redirection is (as I understand it) ultimately to >>the URI of an *information resource* (with its own URI) that >>describes (in some sense) the original non-information resource. The >>draft TAG finding a http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ >>httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14 refers to this redirected-to >>information resource as an "associated information resource" (without >>necessarily intending to introduce that as a defined term). >>Following those lines though, how about calling what you're after an >>"associated representation"? That is, when you dereference the URI >>of a non-information resource, what you get back (after redirection) >>is an "associated representation" (the details of the association >>being determined by the details of the redirection). >> >>-Frank >> >>On Jul 25, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Chris Bizer wrote: >> >>>Hi Frank, >>> >>>>I'd seriously suggest you look for some >>>>alternative to "data item" for the concept >>>>in question. >>> >>>OK, but this leads to a question which I >>>accutally wanted to try to avoid asking on >>>this list. >>> >>>Hmm, I will do it anyway and see what happens ;-) >>> >>>Question 4: What term should we use instead? >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>Chris >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Chris Bizer >>>Freie Universität Berlin >>>Phone: +49 30 838 54057 >>>Mail: chris@bizer.de >>>Web: www.bizer.de >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org> >>>To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> >>>Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>; >>><www-tag@w3.org>; <semantic- web@w3.org>; >>>"Linking Open Data" >>><linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu> >>>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:07 PM >>>Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning >>>Web Architecture and Linked Data >>> >>>>Chris-- >>>> >>>>I appreciate that we run into terminology >>>>conflicts all the time around here, but I'd >>>>seriously suggest you look for some >>>>alternative to "data item" for the concept in >>>>question. An awful lot of people >>>>(particularly those involved with databases) >>>>are used to seeing "data item" refer to >>>>something like a property or attribute (like >>>>"name" or "age"). More specifically, >>>>they're used to seeing records as containing >>>>multiple data items (or their values). From >>>>that point of view, the sentence "When you >>>>interpret the Web of Data as a set of >>>>interlinked databases, a data item would >>>>equal a record in a specific database." >>>>looks particularly strange. As I say, I >>>>understand the inevitability of terminology >>>>conflicts, but ...? >>>> >>>>Cheers! >>>> >>>>--Frank >>>> >>>>On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Chris Bizer wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hi Tim, >>>>> >>>>>>I can't think of a term for "the >>>>>>information which you get about the thing >>>>>>identified by it when you look up a URI" >>>>>>which works for me. >>>>> >>>>>>It has of course the term "Representation" >>>>>>which connects an Information Resource and >>>>>>the (metadata, bits) pair which you get >>>>>>back, which is different. >>>>> >>>>>As we did not want to repeat the definition >>>>>all over the tutorial, we ended up with a >>>>>term called "data item". >>>>> >>>>>Within section 2.1 of the tutorial, we >>>>>define the term as: "The term data items >>>>>refers to the description of a >>>>>non-information resource that a client >>>>>obtains by dereferencing a specific URI that >>>>>identifies this non-information resource." >>>>>(http:// sites.wiwiss.fu- >>>>>berlin.de/suhl/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/ >>>>>#aliases) >>>>> >>>>>Note that the definition is a bit more >>>>>specific than your sentence above, as it is >>>>>restricted to non-information resources and >>>>>not things in general (assuming that your >>>>>term "thing" refers to non- information >>>>>resources as well as information resources). >>>>> >>>>>We were also struggling to find a good word >>>>>that matches the concept and have chosen >>>>>"data item" in the end as it somehow relates >>>>>to the overall term "Linked Data" and as we >>>>>hope that people from the database community >>>>>will understand the second informal >>>>>definition of the term: "When you interpret >>>>>the Web of Data as a set of interlinked >>>>>databases, a data item would equal a record >>>>>in a specific database." >>>>> >>>>>Cheers >>>>> >>>>>Chris -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 18:10:22 UTC