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 20:22:29 +0100
Message-ID: <47FE68F5.5000009@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:
> 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.
>   
I am opposing HTTP LINK not any internal link such as HTML <link>.  So, 
HTTP is necessary for my argument.
>> 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".
>   
I mean the semantics of *resource* HTTP-LINK *resource* should be 
modeled in RDF or in natural language. If we don't want to drop RDF or 
natural language, *resource* HTTP-LINK *resource* should not be granted, 
(by the principle of orthogonal specification), is this right?
>   
>> 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
>   
O.K. can I make this model as

*representation* - describes (LINK) - *resource*?

My question to Jonathan is that *description* must be falling into the 
argument of /representation/.  I didn't assume /representation/ is a 
given, but using /description/ to replace /representation/ doesn't avoid 
to answer the relationship between /representation(description)/ to 
/resource/.  It is the same problem, nothing new.

Xiaoshu
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 19:24:27 GMT

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