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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:06:34 +0100
Message-ID: <47FE572A.5070707@musc.edu>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Michael K. Bergman" <mike@mkbergman.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>



Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> Xiaoshu,
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Xiaoshu Wang
>> Sent: 10 April 2008 17:13
>> To: Jonathan Rees
>> Cc: Michael K. Bergman; www-tag@w3.org WG; Phil Archer
>> Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions
>>
>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>     
>
> <snip/>
>
>   
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> I don't want to be annoying.  But please make a clear and objective
>> definition of *description* for UA2D.
>>
>> Honestly, I don't think how you can separate UA2D from httpRange-14
>> because you can only define *description* w.r.t.  IR or non-IR.
>>
>> I bet if you think hard enough, you will find that *description* is the
>> same thing as *representation*.  Inventing a synonymy won't solve any
>> problem.
>>
>> Xiaoshu
>>     
>
> [In what follows "s/awww:resource/thing" if you prefer]
>
> With apologies for all the 'awww:...'ing, but Pat did ask that we speak very carefully.
>
> That one 'awww:resource' describes another 'awww:resource' (possibly amongst other 'awww:resource') is a relation between 'awww:resources' and other 'awww:resources' which describe them.
>   
Yes, this is what we modeled in RDF (or described in human language). 
Why do we want to move it into HTTP, unless we want to drop RDF or human 
language?  I guess the answer to this question is obvious no. 

Let me model it in such so it is much clear:

*resource* - (LINK) - *resource* should not stand. 

Then *representation* - describes (LINK) - *resource*.  This is the next 
model we agreed upon.

Now, try to find a place for *description*?
> A given 'awww:resource' may have one or more 'awww:representations' (ephemeral messages which convey some view of current 'content' of the given 'awww:resource'). Those 'awww:representations' are *not* the give 'awww:resource' they are 'of' it, but they are not 'it'. I think that we, you an I have agreed on that many times already.
>
> 'awww:resources' that described also have 'awww:representations', but those are 'awww:representations' of the description (an 'awww:resource' that describes) and *not* 'awww:representations' of the described 'awww:resource'.
>
> Phew...
>
> So... Synonymy? No!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stuart
> --
> Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
>
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 18:07:28 GMT

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