W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:15:36 +0100
Message-ID: <47FD07C8.7000500@musc.edu>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>



Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> If I don't know what is an IR, how do I judge what it isn't?  This 
>>>> is essentially what Tim responded to my question.  He said: well 
>>>> !IR <> non-IR.  Then, what is the intersection of IR and non-IR.  
>>>> This is not an answer, this is to avoid answer and then it is 
>>>> useless, don't you think so?
>>>
>>> No. The world is full of cases of concepts which have clear examples 
>>> and non-examples but which are very hard to specify near their 
>>> edges, so very hard to give exact definitions for. Colors are the 
>>> often-cited canonical example. There are reds which everyone will 
>>> agree are red and blues which everyone will agree are non-reds, but 
>>> near the red/orange boundary nobody will agree, even with themselves 
>>> from day to day. Natural concepts often resist precise definitions. 
>>> That doesn't stop them being extremely useful, however.
>> Pat, I see the problem now.  We agree on that there is no clear 
>> distinction for IR.  So, let's don't argue in that direction.
>>
>> My question is very clear and precise.  Do you agree to invoke such 
>> logic in the web.
>>
>> If HTTP(x)=200, x=IR
>> If HTTP(x)=303, x=?
>>
>> Here is the multiple choice
>> (1): Yes.   (1a) The distinction between 200-303 is important.  
>> (Then, it is you who is trying to make a clear distinction, not me.)
>>   (1b) The relationship between 303 and 200 is not important.  Hence, 
>> 200 and 303 becomes irrelevant and therefore httpRange-14.
>>
>> (2).  No.  then, any discussion between 200 and 303 is moot and 
>> therefore httpRange-14.
>> Tell me your position.  My position is very clear - that is (2).  
>> Otherwise, I don't know if you are defending for or against my position.
>
> OK, I will have to go for 1a, then. I wish I didn't have to, and I 
> don't like it, but I see no other feasible choice at present. If 
> someone comes up with one I'll be delighted to hear it. If the 
> Semantic Web were smart enough to handle URI ambiguity the way that 
> human language handles lexical ambiguity, there would be no problem; 
> but right now it isn't, and it probably won't be for some time to 
> come. So we have to do something simpler and cruder.
I don't understand the logic you give.  You want 200=IR.  But then you 
wish the "=" is not necessarily hold?  Where it is going? Then are you 
rejecting or accepting 200=IR or not? Or you take the "=" as a paradox, 
which is neither true nor false?

Xiaoshu
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 18:18:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:55 GMT