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

Re: Last minute input to discussion re 'on the boundaries of content negotiation in the context of the Web of Data'

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:52:02 +0000
Message-ID: <499EDFB2.6000605@musc.edu>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "timbl@w3.org" <timbl@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
<snip>
> If it is an IR, we know we can preserve it by preserving the 
> 0s and 1s, alongside information aiding their interpretation. 
The "it" refers to the IR or its representation? I think it should be 
the latter because we can digital preserve something's state encoded in 
bits but not the thing itself.  This is, what I think, one of the 
culprit of IR-definition, to encourage the practice of psychological 
identification of representation with resource as I have discussed in my 
manuscript[1].

Philosophers are often criticized of hypostasizing or reifying things, 
that is, to create something for the purpose of one's theory.  This is 
exactly what IR is doing.  Nevertheless, we can follow WVO Quine's 
criteria.  That is: hypostasis is O.K. as long as there is an 
ontological commitment.  If TAG intends to define IR, define it in an 
ontology such as in RDF.  At least in this way, people can derive some 
conclusion about it, other than an arbitrary term.

[1]. http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/misc/man/http.html

Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 16:52:56 GMT

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