W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: first pass parseType="Literal" text for primer

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:05:00 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030722134753.051b04c0@localhost>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, i18n <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>

Hello Graham,

Sorry that I used the wrong word, maybe. Let me explain some
of the background for the language I have used.

The key document that proposed serious internationalization for
the Web, written by Gavin Nicol, and still available at
http://www.mind-to-mind.com/library/papers/multilingual/multilingual-www.html,
used the concept of "The WWW As A Multilingual Application"
to explain why it was important to have an overall I18N model:
On the Web (many people these days say *in* the Web), there
is no guarantee that your data will stay with your application
and not go somewhere else.

As you have showed very well below, the word 'application'
is still used for smaller, identifiable pieces of software rather
than for the whole Web. However, the idea that any Web page should
be renderable on any browser, that pieces of XML data can move around
freely, and that any RDF data can move to other places (called applications
in general usage of the term) nevertheless is the central idea of
the Web (including of course the Semantic Web).

So while I may have used the wrong words, I think my point was a
very valid one, namely that any kind of attempt at trying to look
at RDF data too much in terms of single, independent 'applications',
and trying to use this to justify design, is against the very basic
idea of the Web.

Regards,    Martin.

At 15:46 03/07/22 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:

>At 14:33 21/07/03 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>There is no 'Web applications', the
>>Web is one single big application. Similarly, there should not really
>>be anything called an 'RDF application'. All RDF together should be
>>the application.
>
>I'm sorry, I just can't buy that.
>
>Further, the web architecture document [1] makes numerous references to 
>"applications" in the web...
>
>[[
>Depending on the application, an agent may invest more processing effort ...
>]]
>
>[[
>Furthermore, designers should expect that it will prove useful to be able 
>to share a URI across applications ...
>]]
>
>[[
>The Web can be used to interchange resource representations in any format. 
>This flexibility is important, since there is continuing progress in the 
>development of new data formats for new applications and the refinement of 
>existing ones.
>]]
>
>[[
>Sometimes it is necessary (and good for given application) to break layers.
>]]
>
>[[
>The trade-offs between binary and textual data formats are complex and 
>application-dependent.
>]]
>
>[[
>All things being equal (a rare state of affairs) textual formats are 
>generally preferable to binary ones in Web applications.
>]]
>
>[[
>There are many cases where final-form is an application requirement ...
>]]
>
>[[
>Authors and applications can use URIs uniformly to identify different 
>resources on the Web.
>]]
>
>[[
>Some applications (and some users) will undoubtedly build new resources by 
>combining several representations together.
>]]
>
>etc.
>
>#g
>--
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
>
>
>-------------------
>Graham Klyne
><GK@NineByNine.org>
>PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 15:05:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:46 EDT