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

Re: Information resources

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:11:51 +0000
Message-ID: <474AA9F7.9080806@musc.edu>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-tag@w3.org, Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> On 2007-11 -25, at 16:40, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>>>> Of course, I am assuming,
>>>> awww:InformationResource owl:disjointWith awww:NonInformationResource.
>>> The AWWW does not talk about Non-information resources.
>>> You would have to define it is you wanted to use it in conversation.
>> Clearly, Pat is not an Information Resource.  AWWW doesn't not talk 
>> about Pat. Neither about genes, molecule, cars, hard copy books, 
>> etc., etc., how useful will the web be then?
>> My point of view is: AWWW only delivers information in documents. Any 
>> information about anything will do.
>>>> 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.)
>>> 1 is false.
>>> 2 is not defined in the awww.
>> Will (2) ever be defined in the AWWW?
> Non-information resource is your term.  You introduced it.  You 
> haven't explained why you need it.
> You haven't explained how it is part of the argument.
It is not fair, I didn't introduce InformationResource.  I simply bring 
up a term that is the complement of IR,  But sure, let's say

xiaoshu:NonInformationResource owl:complemnetOf gen:InformationResource.

"gen:InformationResource" is the term you used in this mail 
"http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0034.html", where 
you also said,

"[ is log:semantics of <http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes> ]  a log:Falsehood.
If, it would contain something like the triple

<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes. a foaf:Person.

when I know that
<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes> a gen:InformationResource,

and those two classes are disjoint."

And in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Nov/0035.html, you said

[owl:complemnetOf gen:InformationResource] is undefined in the AWWW.

Then who is making the following assertion

foaf:Person owl:disjointWith gen:InformationResource . 

Clearly, it cannot be AWWW because how you can fault someone for something that is undefined.
Then, can I say in the eye's of AWWW,
<http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes> is O.K.?

>> If not, people must be better safe than sorry to front every resource 
>> with a 303 because we can never be sure when and where his/her 
>> "document" will be judged as a FalseDocument.
> Ah. I see.  Your argument is: Well, when I put something on the web, I 
> must be careful to be sure whether it is an IR or not, as if it is an 
> IR I can return 200 but if it is not I must return 303.  I mustn't do 
> the wrong thing or I will get into trouble!
> Try thinking of it this way instead.   You are going to serve some 
> representation on the web, for this thing.
> Are those going to be (a) ABOUT the thing, or (b) the CONTENT of this 
> thing denoted by the URI? If the former, you must use # or 303. If the 
> later, you can serve the representations with 200 from that URI.
> You see, 200 means (basically)  "Here comes the content of the 
> document you asked for"
> and 303 means "Here is the URI of  document ABOUT the thing you asked 
> for.
Let's formulate it a little bit here.
(1) There are Thing.
(2) Every Thing may have Content.
(3) To serve Content, use 200. Otherwise, #hash it or 303.

It sounds clear, but

(4) Content are Thing.
(5) Content may have Content.  [by (2)].
(6) Then I cannot serve Content with 200 because only the Content's 
Content can serve as 200.
(7) Then I am trapped in a 303 loop forever.

Sure, then you can restrict (2) to be that there are Thing that may have 
Content expect Content.  Now, web will have four concepts:  Thing, 
Content, URI, Representation.  So, Content = InformationResource? Then, 
this goes back to your earlier made statement that AWWW defines 
Content/IR but not its complement set.  Doesn't this sound  contradictory? 

> You see? The critical question is what the relation is between the 
> bits you are going to ship and the thing identified.
Tim, it is never about if it works with 303 and #.  It is about if 
non-303 and slash it. I explicitly wrote in my argument, 303 or 
httpRange-14 all work. 

The safest way will be, in fact, never make assertions about slash URI, 
in either natural language or RDF.  Only make assertions about the hash 
URI because you never know when and where there will be get into 
trouble.  For instance, if someone somehow slip this assertion into an 
RDF engine,

<http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch> a [owl:complementOf 

the AWWW becomes false.  How ironic will that be?  I guess a lot of 
hackers are rooting for this formalism to work. 

> Will my Volkswagen work fine without answering the question "What is 
> an Engine?".
> The VW manual tells the factory how to put together car.  The manual 
> tells me how to drive a car.
> I use it even though I don't have a com
So, your point is my point? So, when I read a HTML document, do I have 
to check every slash URI mentioned in the document is fronted with a 200 
or 303?  And disregard them accordingly? 

Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 11:12:25 UTC

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