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

RE: Towards a position of neutrality on issue httpRange-14 for AWWW (was RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource"))

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:49:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4177A242.2090805@hp.com>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, www-tag@w3.org

Hello Patrick,

Just lifting a few of the points from your message:

> I would be content, at this juncture, to see AWWW reach a 
> stable, mature state without explicitly addressing issue 
> httpRange-14, provided that AWWW does not otherwise include 
> content which illustrates or favors one side of that issue 
> but not the other.

FWIW that I think is what the TAG has indeed being trying to do for
quite some time.
[Stage direction: to be read in a tone of exasperation. :-)]

Wrt the following:

> I propose modifying such text to make the examples neutral to 
> the debate, e.g. for the example in section 4.5.3:
> 
>    "For flat namespaces, concatenation is one useful mapping. If namespace 
>     URIs that end with a hash ("#") are chosen, then simple concatenation 
>     of the namespace URI and the local name creates a URI for a secondary 
>     resource (the identified term). This technique is used for many [RDFXML] 
>     namespaces."
> 
> change the text to something akin to:
> 
>    "For flat namespaces, concatenation is one useful mapping. The simple 
>     concatenation of the namespace URI and the local name creates a URI 
>     for the identified term. This technique is used by [RDFXML]."
> 
> This revised text is compatible with either side of the 
> httpRange-14 debate and hence fully neutral while still 
> providing the intended utility.

I'd like to support the edit you suggest. Norm was actioned to revise 
this text to remove an actual error that intimated that RDF actually 
introduced '#' during the concatenation process [1]. Your replacement 
edit could fall within the scope of that action.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/10/18-tagmem-irc#T19-59-57

Wrt:
 > The TAG may also wish to examine forms of expression such as
 > in section 4.4:
 >
 >    "When one resource (representation) refers to another resource with
 >    a URI, this constitutes a link between the two resources."
 >
 > as potentially suggestive of the nature of the referring
 > resource (since one can concieve of an information resource
 > referring to another resource but not a non-information
 > resource necessarily doing so).

Hmmm... I think that I can refer to a resource.

 > As it is actually the representation that is doing the
 > referring, stating this in a more neutral, and also a more
 > precise, manner would be advisable.

Well that's a bit chicken and egg really. Why would a representation 
contain a reference... because the resource it represents refers to the 
other resource.

IMO the links are between resources. They may be manifest in 
representations - an indeed some representations may supresses some 
possible links.

 > E.g. change the above text to:
 >
 >    "When the representation of one resource refers to another resource
 >     with a URI, this constitutes a link between the two resources."
 >
 > etc.

I'm not persuaded on that one.

Thanks,

Stuart
--
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 11:49:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:43 UTC