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

Re: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, etc.)

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:20:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4A482500.9010104@musc.edu>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, ashok
> malhotra<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Eran:
>> Trying to understand your proposal.
>> By 'abstract' do you mean URIs for which a representation cannot be
>> retrieved?
>> So, perhaps, a chair?
>> My assumption was that for such resources you want to retrieve the metadata.
> Quibble: In the case of a chair, you can't get metadata, since a chair
> isn't data.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:metadata
Then, what is data?  This is not intended for a child-play.  It is a 
method of philosophical or scientific inquiry.  For instance, most of 
the physics theory is, in fact, driven by a seemingly ridiculous 
question: what is motion?  And more profoundly, what is space and time.
> This is why it's nice that Eran calls the description resource a
> "description resource" instead of a "metadata resource". 
This is again a psychological trick that does not solve any real word 
problem because then: what is "description resource"?  Find something 
that is non-descriptive? "X" does not say anything about "Y" makes "X" a 
descriptive resource of "Y", doesn't it?  Then, the fallacy of the 
definition is obvious.  What word we use is in fact inconsequential, 
whatever it is, it is just merely a label for the conceptualization, 
which desires an unambiguous definition.

It is the same for the ambiguous concepts, such as "information" and 
"metadata" etc.  If you cannot find a definition that can tell metadata 
from non-metadata, you are not giving out a definition. Which is then 
useless in practice.  I can assure you if you go on this direction, 
whatever resolution it comes out will be another httpRange-14.
> LRDD is a
> compatible alternative to linked-data 303 nose-following, one that
> (like 303, as David Booth has pointed out) behaves uniformly without
> caring whether the resource is "data"-like or not - it means you don't
> have to ask or answer that question. I advocate using his terminology.
> Perhaps an alternative to a new URI scheme for hosts would be loop
> detection inside of LRDD? I think that's close to what you're saying.
> -Jonathan
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 02:22:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:02 UTC