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.  

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 10:11:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:56 UTC