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 15:23:51 +0100
Message-ID: <47FF7477.9060104@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 Xiaoshou,
>
> <snip/>
>   
>>>>>           
>>>> 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.
>>     
>
> Because you don't see the utility is no reason to stand in the way of a queue of people that do.
>
> In terms of use cases: how would you address use cases from Jonathan for content formats that don't have a means to carry links or inline metadata: the simplest being plain-text resources; zipped resources; extending through signed resources (changing their content will disturb signatures); and just the mass of legacy stuff out there that approximately no-one is going to update to fit in with your world view.
>   
Can not all your posted problem be not solved with Conneg? Treat the 
following as plain text "http://www.w3.org".  Anyone read it don't know 
how to use it?  If the legacy data don't mind update to fit in with 
Conneg, what does it make them to use LINK?  I don't understand the 
rational behind.

Perhaps, it is me who have failed to understand the other people's 
problem.  But isn't it possible that it is others who have failed to 
understand HTTP-Conneg?  I am not trying to force other people's view, I 
tried to make the web architecture as clean as possible and as less 
confusing as possible. 
> <snip/>
>
>   
>>>> 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?
>>     
>
> Are we agreed that Jonathan is *not* "inventing a synonymy"?
>   
No. I don't agree.  Because give me a concrete example of 
"description".  If you can find such an example that cannot be explained 
in the context of *representation* and *resource*, I will agree.  But I 
still cannot see any.  I have said Mark's LINK draft is very much DC.  
All those might not fit, such as POWER's GRDDL sheet can be easily 
solved with Conneg.  Find an example that I cannot reduce the problem to 
these categories, I will be the first to support it.
> Please... that is the point/claim I was addressing. I have no idea whether we have agreed on it or not.
>
> To answer your other question here: "What can it[description] be?". I gave my answer that way before, with all the "awww:"'ing and you agreed:
>
> It is a relation between (in this context) "awww:resource" where on resource is descriptive of another.
>   
This is exactly the problem I have.  Isn't RDF is all about *describing* 
resource with another resource?  You tell me what is the difference between

(a) <x> HTTP-LINK: copyright <y>
(b) <x> dc:copyright <y>.

Then tell me what is the difference between two types of *description*?  
I am too dump or numb to see the difference. 

Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 14:24:35 GMT

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