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: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:42:08 +0000
Message-ID: <49995110.7050105@musc.edu>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>


Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I care about this too. We've been telling people that *all*
> co-representations, even exotic ones like turtle and XRDS, need to
> "say the same thing", without providing a piece of writing that
> explains why and with what normative force. I'll get it onto the
> agenda - or at least into the hopper for any discussion of TAG
> priorities.
>
> I think the procedure is that the topic gets onto a meeting agenda at
> the chair's discretion, then at the meeting, after discussion, we
> resolve to create an issue.
>   
I would be interested in an answer in this direction too.  I am guilty 
of diverting Michael's question off to a different one.  I think that I 
might have guessed too much on what the potential direction of his question.

Thinking of Michael's specific question -- i.e., the definition of two 
representations are equivalent, I am, in fact, not optimistic that there 
can or should be one such definition or recommendation. To use OO 
programming language as an example. Most of them have defined at least 
two kind of *equivalence*.  One is based on object identity and the 
other a user-implemented method, such as java's equals().  This is 
reasonable because had a language defined a fixed semantics of the 
second equivalence, it will definitely hurts its robustness as a general 
purpose programming language.  For me, I have always thought that URI is 
the interface to the Web and awww:representation the implementation. 
Hence, I don't expect that the outcome of a potential discussion will be 
anything concrete, if any.

Xiaoshu
> Jonathan
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Michael Hausenblas
> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>   
>> TAG members, Ian,
>>
>> Honestly, I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed. I *thought* I've clearly
>> articulated my question (and I still don't know what is missing from my side
>> that I get clear answers - please let me know) and added a request for an
>> issue here. In my understanding both were not addressed/answered in a
>> satisfying way. I appreciate when a TAG member (thanks, Jonathan, this helps
>> me feeling a bit less lost) states [1] :
>>
>> 'I'm as starved of citations on this subject as you are.'
>>
>> However, I'd really like to hear from a chair or whoever feels responsible
>> if or how the TAG intents to address my question/issue.
>> ...
>>     
>
>   
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 11:43:15 GMT

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