W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Question on the boundaries of content negotiation in the context of the Web of Data

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:28:41 +0100
Message-ID: <49948679.6000500@danbri.org>
To: wangxiao@musc.edu
Cc: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>

On 12/2/09 21:14, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:

> The practical solution, I think, would not be trying to define what is
> IR (Honestly, I don't think there can ever be). Rather, it is to find a
> standard way to denote "representation". Once we know when we are
> working with representation, and when we are working with resource
> (i.e., by way of URI), then all things will be very clear.

Yes, this is at the heart of the matter.

We could spend all our lifetimes trying to come up with a definition of 
"information resource" that separated the universe in two. But we have 
no criteria for identifying any "right answer" when it appears.

Being clearer about when we're talking about a bytestream Web-supplied 
http representation of something, versus "the thing itself", is 
something we an work on productively. Again, it might be an endless 
task, since the two are often usefully conflated. But greater clarity 
can be reached step by step.

Re "representation", ... it has been argued (TimBL, frequently) that an 
RDFS/OWL schema presents a "definition" or "description" of RDF classes 
and properties, rather than a "representation". This is why the FOAF 
spec site sends HTTP 303 redirects currently. I would be quite 
interested to see whether this distinction can be refined and more 
widely agreed. I suspect it can't, but I'm willing to try...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 20:29:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:12 GMT