W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2004

RE: Revised draft of CBD

From: John Black <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:50:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CBEA695878CA104ABC6E74C6B1769275542741@DLTKVMX2.ads.deltek.com>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: <eric@w3.org>, <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 2:07 AM
>
> > From: ext John Black [mailto:JohnBlack@deltek.com]
> > Sent: 18 October, 2004 17:41
> > 
> > > From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com 
> [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:14 AM
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ext John Black [mailto:JohnBlack@deltek.com]
> > > > Sent: 18 October, 2004 14:50
> > > > 
> > > > > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> > > > > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:13 AM
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > How or where various commonly used forms of description could
> > > > > be documented and presented as a whole is an open question.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would love to see either the DA WG or the SW BP WG produce
> > > > > a non-normative advisory document along those lines, but
> > > > > something less formal, done as a collaboration of interested
> > > > > parties, would be good too.
> > > > 
> > > > I am attempting to build a list of these forms on my Wiki
> > > > http://kashori.com/wikiPim/BoundedDescriptions
> > > > I have added pointers to all the recent species 
> mentioned recently
> > > > but have not yet had time to add all the pages.
> > > > 
> > > > The selection criteria is something like this: 
> > > > 
> > > > What is the smallest, most valuable, denotative content that 
> > > > could be returned by WWW processes in response to a URI that is 
> > > > also used as a vocabulary term in Semantic Web activities.
> > > 
> > > It need not be limited to vocabulary terms (unless that is 
> > > specifically
> > > your focus) but rather, about any arbitrary resource, for any
> > > otherwise unrecognized URI.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm. I didn't intend it to be limited in that way. I did mean 
> > arbitrary resource. I'm trying to say that in the context of  
> > semantic web statements, URIs are vocabulary terms used to denote 
> > arbitrary resources. 
> > 
> > So how about this:
> > What is the minimum, denotative content that can be returned by 
> > a WWW processes in response to a URI that is also used as a name in 
> > some semantic web statement to denote an arbitrary resource.
> > 
> > Also, there is a redundancy in the phrase "most valuable, 
> > denotative". Denotative *is* the value. However "denotative"
> > is needed or else the minimum could be none. In fact, for the 
> > same reason, I think it is also needed in the name. How about 
> > "Bounded Denotative Descriptions"? Except that I have included 
> > some representations, such as Web Proper Names. Since descriptions 
> > are a type (textual) of representations, the best may be "Bounded 
> > Denotative Representations".
> 
> Sounds reasonable.
> 
> Though it may still be a bit vague being open to any form of
> representation.
> 
> It may be more useful to ask, what form of subgraph of a graph
> of RDF statements might constitute an optimal body of information
> about a resource, given a particular URI denoting that resource;
> or some such. Basing the question on an RDF graph helps answers
> to be directly useful by semantic web applications.
> 
> A JPEG image may be considered an optimal form of representation
> for certain classes of resources, but it's unlikely to be of much
> ues to a semantic web agent (and I understand the goal of your
> survey to identify forms of descriptions useful to semantic web
> agents).

I need to clarify my goal. I believe achieving common knowledge 
of a meaning for a URI would be enabled by making some form of sense 
representation content retrievable by submitting that URI to WWW 
machinery. So what is the best form?*

I'm taking the broad view of semantic web agents wherein 
some are human and some are software, assuming humans will input 
information to the software agents, which agents may then interact 
among themselves, and then output information back to humans. In both 
situations either the human or the software agent may come upon the 
same unknown URI and need an effective way to find out what it is 
about.

I am shooting for a class hierarchy within which to situate those 
forms that are best suited to software agent interaction, but I want 
to include forms that a human could use as well.

The problem I have with the phrase "optimal body of information" is 
that it doesn't seem to include an objective against which the body 
of information is optimized. Thus I think "minimal *denotative* 
content" (or "minimal *denotative* body of information") is better 
because it specializes optimal to minimal and provides an objective 
function to be optimized, namely "denotative". In other words, it 
must be both minimal *and* denotative. Without the objective function 
in an optimization problem, there optimum is unconstrained, see
http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/optimization.html

John Black

*by the way, CBD and URIQA come the closest so far, IMHO.
 
> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick
> 
> > John
> > 
> > > Patrick
> > > > 
> > > > John Black
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Patrick
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 12:40:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:10 GMT