- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:17:28 -0500
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
AFAIK there is no way to make a statement about a representation, only about a resource. Therefore we can not evaluate the truth of something like a statement involving containsWord solely by looking at representations. -Alan On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > > (Using "representation" in the AWWW sense here.) > > Suppose I have a resource R, and for some reason I believe that > R dc:creator author:Charles_Dickens. > > Now suppose that I do a GET to obtain a representation, and let F be > the fixed resource (see [1]) whose representation is this representation. > (I'll need a term for the coercion of representation to fixed resource, so > I'll say "the FR of the representation.") > > Assuming good faith and proper functioning on everyone's part, > can I conclude that F dc:creator author:Charles_Dickens . ? I suspect > so, but is this idea codified anywhere? Wouldn't this be part of AWWSW? > > It seems to me that some properties will be shared between a resource > and its representations' FRs, while others aren't. > > E.g. a property containsWord could easily be true of one representation > but not another (e.g. if the representations differ by language). Or, > more obviously, > one can meaningfully talk about the media type and content-length of a FR, > but not necessarily of its originating resource. Volatility is similar: the FR > is by definition not time-varying, but the resource may be. > > I guess this is what Tim's "generic resources" memo [1] is saying. > > Are there any properties of a resource that can be inferred > from its representations? That is, when I do a GET, do I > (or rather a stupid automated agent) learn anything > at all about what the resource is? I certainly don't learn anything > about, say, volatility, unless we're lucky enough to have > a credible assertion about it in the representation. > But I would guess that at least for things like authorship > (aspects of the content), if P and Q are disjoint classes, > and P applies to a resource's representation's FR, then you can conclude that > Q does not apply to the resource? That is, if you find that > any representation's FR's creator list consists of {George Eliot}, then > you know that the resource's creator list cannot be {Charles Dickens}. > > This doesn't hold for volatility: volatile and nonvolatile are disjoint. > > Conjecture: It seems that this analysis could continue, e.g. by helping > one to understand the domain, range, and arity (functional, inverse > functional, etc.) of various properties such as authorship and volatility > that one might apply to (information) resources. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html > > P.S. Is anyone interested in the AWWSW group any more? > >
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 18:18:02 UTC