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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:05:26 -0600
Message-ID: <48011606.5000101@mjclement.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: wangxiao@musc.edu, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>

Pat,

Thank you, this illuminates the discussion a great deal, 
especially now that Xiaoshu has confirmed its correspondence 
with his intentions.

This immediately raises, for me, some questions (for Pat or 
Xiaoshu or anyone):

- Is this view an accurate view of the Web which exists? 
  A goal?  Or simply an alternative, interesting idea?

(I would say only the latter.  And I thought I detected a bit of a 
gleam in your eye, Pat, throughout.)

- Is the narrow, awww:represents meaning of 'represents' a problem 
  to be resolved by propagation of the original, broader English 
  meaning into the Web architecture?
  Or is the confusion a natural result of the co-option of an English 
  word as a technical term, comparable to our use of words such as 
  "server" and "client", in which case it should be resolved in other 
  ways, viz education and clarification?

Again I would say the latter.

- Would the effective dropping of awww:resources out of the universe 
  of (convenient) discourse a desirable or acceptable state of affairs?

> We might call it a storyteller for R. R might have a whole lot of 
> storytellers, each capable of telling different kinds of story about R.

A question mostly for Xiaoshu:

- In this view, do you consider it desirable for a storyteller to be able 
  to tell precisely 0 or 1 stories about R per media type?

Michaeljohn
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 20:06:09 GMT

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