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

Some questions about declarations, was: Re: AWWW Mechanism for Interpreting use of RDF Symbols was - Re: ISSUE-58: Scalability of URI Access to Resources

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:50:22 -0400
Message-Id: <C3241DFF-6097-41A3-80CD-3B0024F2111E@gmail.com>
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, W3C-TAG Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, jarcc Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>

Hi David,

> 1. URI declaration: http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/

Some questions about declarations:

- It looks like declarations are for individuals. Otherwise I am  
confused about what the declaration for a class would be. "A URI  
declaration is authoritative only in defining the association between  
the declared URI and a particular resource". Is the class an  
information resource? If not, what is it, and how does one create the  
association?

- You write that  "the other hand, statement M3 ("For more  
information about http://dbooth.org/2007/moon/ , see also http:// 
dbooth.org/2007/moon/about.html") is safe to include in the URI  
declaration page, because it is merely a suggestion: it does not  
affect the satisfiability of p(x).". How are we to determine which  
statements are of this kind - namely that they do not affect the  
satisfiability of p(x).

- The following: "If the URI contains a fragment identifier, then the  
racine of the URI (i.e., the part before the #) should lead to a  
suitable URI declaration page" would seem to imply that there should  
not be more than one hash identifier with the same racine, unless  
they denote the same resource. Do I have this correct?

- In the statement: "Proposed rule R1:  Given a URI u, if either of  
the follow-your-nose mechanisms described above yields a  
representation r, then, unless otherwise indicated, the conjunction  
of assertions made in r represents an implicit URI declaration for  
u", how are we to know whether the yield is a representation, and how  
would we indicate that the conjunction of assertions does not  
represent an implicit URI declaration for u?

- Suppose I have a document, and wish to indicate that there is  
another version of that document with a different URI. How can I do  
this using the mechanism you propose? Or, where *am* I able to say  
that the moon is made of green cheese.

- Is there any status given to statements that are contained in a  
document served with a 200 response that is not accessed via the  
follow-your-nose algorithm? If so, how do I know which ones?

- The declaration would necessarily use URIs that are defined by  
others. Suppose the declaration of one of those uris is changed,  
either purposefully or inadvertently. Can that change the  
authoritative association of URI to resource that use these  
externally defined terms in its declaration? If yes, then does that  
not undermine the authority of the declarer? If not, how is one able  
to become aware of this unfortunate situation?

-Alan
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 05:50:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:47 GMT