- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:57:11 -0500
- To: valentina presutti <vpresutti@gmail.com>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:36 PM, valentina presutti wrote: > > - we have put cnt:Content under ire:WebResource (which is what > Jonathan calls Accessible, i.e. AWWWIR) NO - these are completely different! See [1]. Yes, I think WebResource may coincide with Accessible = the things Pat says can be "accessed", which happens to coincide with "resource" in the HTTP/1.1 sense. I would say such things are concrete, ultimately physical, things, sort of like physical books - connected to space and time. But I defined "AWWWIR" to mean whatever AWWW means (which I've never been able to discern). Although I would be reluctant to say how these things relate to anything else, Tim, David, and I have now all agreed at least that whatever an AWWWIR is, it is very likely *not* an HTTP/ 1.1 resource = Accessible (this last equation is something we agreed made sense IIRC). Your "information object" seems to be not incompatible with an overlap with, or subsumption of/by, AWWWIR. Too busy to turn this into OWL or a diagram right now, but that is what's needed, I think. (Where I say in [1] "I am reliably informed that ... the things named by 200-yielding URIs whose naming authorities have said nothing in particular about what the URIs denote, are AWWWIRs" this is not really something I stand by - it was not meant to be fully serious, but rather to playfully continue an argument I've been having with one member of the group. Right now I would neither agree nor disagree with such a statement.) I'd still like to see what, at the outset of AWWSW, everyone agreed would be desirable: Ontologies reflecting each world view (David, Tim, Pat, me, AWWW, HTTP/1.1, IRE, ...). We can then connect these together with sensible relations, and remove redundant parts, as we discover relationships on which we may have agreement. Sorry to not know what you mean by cnt:Content - are these things abstract (like numbers, HTTP/1.1 entities, or editions of books) or concrete (like a numeral as written on a piece of paper, the contents of some part of a computer's memory, or the things that's mean when someone conjures an ISBN)? If the former then this class is disjoint with Accessible. Jonathan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Nov/0025.html
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 16:58:01 UTC