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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:06:24 +0100
Message-ID: <47FF6250.3080801@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 Xiashou,
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
>> Sent: 10 April 2008 20:22
>> 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:
>>     
>>> Hello Xiaoshu,
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
> <snip/>
>
>   
>>>>> [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.
>>     
>
> You are clearly opposed to something, but my comprehension of quite what that something is erodes with each exchange of messages :-(.
>
>   
>>>> unless we want to drop RDF or human
>>>> language?  I guess the answer to this question is obvious no.
>>>>         
>
> The question you ask "unless we want to drop RDF or human language?" seems incomplete. I have failed to make anything of it.
>   
I am opposing unnecessarily put an HTTP-LINK header because I couldn't 
imagine a use case for HTTP LINK, which cannot be solved with putting 
link in content, i.e., using RDF or human language, or using Conneg.  In 
other words, I think the functionality of the potential HTTP LINK would 
be redundant to some other part of functionalities of the web, which 
eventually will make the web difficult to operate on.
>>>> 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?
>>     
>
> I'm sorry, I'm not able to answer because I do not understand the question. I could make guesses about the question, but I think it would be wrong for me to do that.
>
>   
>>>> 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*?
>>     
>
> The intended meaning of the notation you use escapes me. I can make guesses... but... GIGO [1].
>
> [1] http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/GIGO.html
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Ok... so the bit that I can work with....
>
> You posed that Jonathan was "inventing a synonymy" wrt  "description" (and variants: describes; descriptionOf...) and "representation" (and variants: represents; reprentationOf...) and that "Inventing a synonymy won't solve any problem."
>
> Whilst I agree that "Inventing a synonymy won't solve any problem." I also argued in [2](coherently I thought) that "description"+variants and "representation"+variants are not being used synonmously ie. (at least IMO) Jonathan is not "inventing a synonymy".
>
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0100
>   
I was trying to say  "description"+variants, should be described in RDF 
or in natural languages.  Isn't description the content of another 
resource in this sense?  So, if description is neither "resource" nor 
"representation"? What can it be?

Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 13:07:56 GMT

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