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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:10:17 +0100
Message-ID: <48032D89.9040901@musc.edu>
To: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "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>



Michaeljohn Clement wrote:
> Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>   
>>> One can make many useful statements about an IR as identified by a URI.
>>>       
>>   
>> I was asking you *exactly* what you mean by many useful statement, which
>> you can do before and cannot do now?
>>     
>
> I might record my opinion of it or the time when I first saw it. 
> Archive.org might say when a representation of it was first archived by 
> the service they provide.  I might simply say of it that it is a diagram, 
> as I mentioned before, or that it is available in different formats via 
> conneg.  I might bookmark it and associate it with certain tags, as social 
> bookmarking sites already allow with some limitations.
>   
Who said that you cannot do that now? Just remind you that each HTML 
page may potentially containing many URIs, do you bookmark them all of 
you bookmark one?
> I might even publish a list of all the Web pages I visited today, by 
> making, about each of them, a similar assertion.  That would enable the 
> kind of thing people are doing today with centralized services.
>
> All of these would be perfectly reasonable things to say about an IR, 
> would they not?
>
> All of these seem like they can easily be done with simple browser 
> widgets that simply publish RDF triples from my personal Web space.
>
> Many of those triples would turn out to be nonsensical if the URIs 
> is question in fact identify, say, a gene, or the moon.
>   
Come on.  Define IR and essential before using it to argue O.K.? How can 
we have a meaningful argument on something that has an ambiguous 
definitions?  The argument would be end-less and point-less.
>> Did my reinterpretation of the web
>> architecture prevents you from doing that?
>>     
>
> I do not yet fully know.
>
> It may not prevent it, but it at least changes the way I must go about 
> it, and I think the change is a move away from the way things are now 
> and away from (at least what I have seen as) some of the early promise 
> of the Semantic Web.
>   
That is again you have not fully understand what I and Pat try to tell 
you.  It is not move /away/, you can still work in the same way as you 
do now.  It is about to have /more/ ways to do /more/ things - in a more 
useful and meaningful way.
>> I have no idea what you have
>> specific in mind.  Can you find one concrete example since you said "
>> *this* (- what is it) has been well covered in the existing Semantic Web
>> literature"?
>>     
>
> I thought scenarios such as the above had been widely known as far back 
> as 2001 or earlier, and that these kinds of use-cases are generally 
> regarded as part of what the Semantic Web is meant to enable.
>   
You have completely understand my position wrong.  My re-interpretation 
does not /exclude/ but /include/ existing web practice.  

Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 10:11:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:56 GMT