W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Conforming is such sweet sorrow (was: Re: The meaning of "representation"

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:06:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4749C7A3.5060905@musc.edu>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>

<snip>
> On a different (perhaps more constructive note), Pat, I think you can
> achieve your initial intent by using a standard that embeds RDF
> directly into the HTML such that the RDF captures the declarations you
> have recorded in natural english.  I've taken the liberty of running
> with this idea for your sake, because I think this issue is crucial :)
>   
It still won't conform to httpRange-14 as long as anywhere in the 
message it says "<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes> a 
foat:Person."  In httpRange-14's eye, the meaning of a message is not 
solely dependent on what the message is but also on how the message is 
delivered through the web.  RDFa's and GRDDL's RDF is *delivered* from 
client side, just like fragment identifier, it doesn't count. 

I am very curious about the question that I raised in my document.  
Which one of the following assertion true?

(1) <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> a awww:InformationResource. 
(2) <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> a awww:NonInformationResource. 

Of course, I am assuming,

awww:InformationResource owl:disjointWith awww:NonInformationResource. 

Because if it is not true, i.e., there is something that can be either 
IR or non-IR, then the definition of IR seems already irrelevant (at 
least if we don't find another 30x code for that mixed category with 
regard to httpRange-14).

As everything in the web is a rdfs:Resource, either (1) or (2) seems 
running into a paradox.  (I am not a logician.  If I am wrong, please 
point it out for me.)

The question has never been asked before. I guess it is because it is 
denoted by a hash URI.  But if IR is indeed an objective attribute of a 
resource, then we sure could ask that question regardless what its name 
is.  Put it in other way, if the RDF scheme were designed with hash URI, 
say rdfs:resource is denoted by the following URI,

http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema/Resource

Should this URI 303 or not?

Xiaoshu
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 19:06:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:54 UTC