- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:05:36 +0900
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
The AKT example in that note seems to me to be in the wrong direction. The problem is that there is no theory of what AKT is. Here is a theory: AKT is some class of proteins, instances of which are individual protein molecules. Later it is discovered that there are various subclasses (no surprises - any class can have subclasses, and even AKT, before the "splitting" could be considered to have subclasses - for instance those that were phosphorylated). When these subclasses are discovered, one adds ... subclass axioms. AKT1 subclassOf AKT. Separately one has terminology. The word "AKT" was initially only a label for AKT. Later it also became a label for AKT1. No surprise again - words are notoriously ambiguous. There is no need to introduce these *completely undefined* relations s:isBroaderThan etc. There *is* a need to understand and use existing *defined* mechanisms, such as rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:label, in this case. rdfs:comment wouldn't be a bad idea while we're at it. -Alan On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > > Thanks David! > > Re http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/ - yes, I'm aware of it (actually > bookmarked it on delicious on 26 Jan 2009 ;) and of course I read it. > > I must admit that when I read your note I didn't really get/see this point. > My bad, sorry. > > @Jonathan: as there are at least two people around that think into the same > direction and maybe some more that could imagine this can solve some of our > issues around httpRange, IR, etc. - how about adding it to the TAG F2F > agenda? Or is it too late? Too vague? > > Cheers, > Michael > > -- > Dr. Michael Hausenblas > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan, > Galway, Ireland, Europe > Tel. +353 91 495730 > http://sw-app.org/about.html > http://webofdata.wordpress.com/ > > >> From: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com> >> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:06:53 +0000 >> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, AWWSW TF >> <public-awwsw@w3.org> >> Subject: RE: Learning from other disciplines? >> >> Michael, >> >> That sounds similar what I've been arguing for quite a while: >> >> (a) Ambiguity is unavoidable. (Pat Hayes has articulated this point much >> better than me though.) >> >> (b) The ambiguity involved in failing to distinguish between an IR and a >> non-IR is not fundamentally different than other kinds of ambiguity. >> >> (c) Something that is adequately clear and unambiguous to one application may >> be ambiguous to another application, because different apps have different >> needs. A URI such as http://markbaker.ca/ that denotes both a person and a >> web page may be perfectly fine for an application that has no need to >> distinguish between IRs and non-IRs, but it may cause confusion and havok to >> an application that relies on such a distinction. >> >> (d) Therefore, there is no need to view such IR-versus-non-IR ambiguity as a >> violation of web architecture, though it may be a violation of good practice. >> >> These points are explained a but further in >> http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/#httpRange-14 >> >> >> >> David Booth, Ph.D. >> HP Software >> +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com >> http://www.hp.com/go/software >> >> Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not >> necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org >>> [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hausenblas >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:39 AM >>> To: AWWSW TF >>> Subject: Learning from other disciplines? >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> This is a crazy idea, but please give it a thought before >>> rejecting it ... >>> >>> As far as I gather 'we' sort of fail to agree if we >>> should/can define IR and >>> non-IR or even if we need to differentiate between documents >>> and abstract >>> things at all. One could now try to understand the problem >>> from a totally >>> different point of view by learning from quantum mechanics. >>> >>> You are surely aware of the waveparticle duality [1]? So why >>> can't we try >>> to apply the same idea here. We can say, for example, that for a given >>> application/use case the distinction between IR and non-IR >>> makes no sense at >>> all and hence is useless; all that counts at the end of the >>> day are some >>> bytes and maybe some metadata that we can get over the wire. >>> In other cases >>> one thing may be abstract or one thing may be a document. The >>> Web version of >>> the 'waveparticle duality'-equivalent would then render sort of: >>> >>> === >>> The 'document-thing duality' addresses the inadequacy of >>> classical concepts >>> (from the operating system domain, software development, etc.) like >>> "document" and "abstract thing" in fully describing the behaviour of >>> Web-scale objects. >>> === >>> >>> Comments, anyone? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michael >>> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality >>> >>> PS: Jonathan, thanks a lot for your detailed comments re the >>> dependencies >>> visualisation - I will address them in a separate mail (esp. >>> the n^2 table >>> approach - I like it ;) >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas >>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute >>> National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan, >>> Galway, Ireland, Europe >>> Tel. +353 91 495730 >>> http://sw-app.org/about.html >>> http://webofdata.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> >>> > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:06:13 UTC