RE: Http.owl (was RE: JAR conflict for July 7 AWWSW telecon)

Hi Jonathan,

> I don't know - as you can tell my usual method is to try a term on for
> size for a while, and change it every few weeks until I settle on
> something I like. I guess this is annoying. Alan suggests we just use
> numbers in the URIs and then let the labels drift until they find a
> nice place. (Will TopBraid show labels instead of URIs? I'll see if
> Protege does.)

Yes it does... Though there don't seem to me to be too many in http.owl (the one that I originally downloaded).

Stuart
--


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rees [mailto:jar@creativecommons.org] 
> Sent: 06 July 2009 15:40
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: AWWSW TF
> Subject: Re: Http.owl (was RE: JAR conflict for July 7 AWWSW telecon)
> 
> I've checked in a fixed version, also adding some relationships to
> make your TopBraid diagram look better, introducing
> "HttpRepresentation" as distinct from an HttpEntity, and so on.
> 
> The idea behind the names is that a Correspondence is *of* a
> WaRepresentation *to* a Rfc2616Resource (i.e. the wa-representation
> corresponds to the Rfc2616Resource). Sorry for the turgid prose.
> 
> At some point I liberalized Entity -> WaRepresentation, perhaps under
> Tim's influence. I have considered changing WaRepresentation to
> "Value" a la Roy Fielding's paper, although I know most people will
> find that objectionable, but "entity" doesn't work very well any more
> now that the non-resource-specific headers such as Expires: are
> excluded, while "representation" is difficult for the usual reasons of
> not necessarily representing anything and so on.
> 
> I don't know - as you can tell my usual method is to try a term on for
> size for a while, and change it every few weeks until I settle on
> something I like. I guess this is annoying. Alan suggests we just use
> numbers in the URIs and then let the labels drift until they find a
> nice place. (Will TopBraid show labels instead of URIs? I'll see if
> Protege does.)
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs,
> Bristol)<skw@hp.com> wrote:
> > Hello Jonathan,
> >
> > The one relation that I can't make sense of (yet) in 
> http.owl is "http:ofWaRepresentation" the associated comment says:
> >
> >        "C hasWaRepresentation R when R is the 
> wa-representation that corresponds to the resource in which C 
> inheres during C's lifetime."
> >
> > which seems to be a comment about a different relation... 
> Or at least has not kept up with some name changes. Domain 
> and range of "ofWaRepresentation" are "http:Message" and 
> "http:Entity" respectively which has left me confused about 
> the intent of the relation.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jonathan Rees [mailto:jar@creativecommons.org]
> >> Sent: 06 July 2009 12:12
> >> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> >> Cc: AWWSW TF
> >> Subject: Re: JAR conflict for July 7 AWWSW telecon
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs,
> >> Bristol)<skw@hp.com> wrote:
> >> > I too have a conflict and cannot make the call on 7th July.
> >>
> >> OK, it looks as if 7 July is canceled.
> >>
> >> I would still really like to get feedback on
> >> http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http.owl
> >> and
> >> http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/jar-diagram-7.pdf
> >>
> >> but I don't know if it's worth scheduling an extra call. Let's try
> >> email, and I'll meet with Alan R in person about it.
> >>
> >> I want to start thinking soon about what should be in a 
> report on this
> >> effort. Not that the work is anywhere near done, but I hope each of
> >> you (active participants) will think about what would be 
> good content
> >> and structure, to help guide next steps.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >
>

Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 15:00:04 UTC