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

RE: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:06:30 +0000
To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
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>
Message-ID: <9674EA156DA93A4F855379AABDA4A5C611CE6D892D@G5W0277.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hello Xiaoshu,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
> Sent: 10 April 2008 19:07
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: Jonathan Rees; Michael K. Bergman; www-tag@w3.org WG; Phil Archer
> Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions
>
> 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,

Move *what* to HTTP... I didn't mention 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.

Don't understand what you mean by "(LINK)" and "should not stand".

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

No... we don't agree. I can only make guesses at what you are trying to say.

> 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

opps s/give/given above

> > '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

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 19:11:28 GMT

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