Re: metadata subjects + 200 - a poll

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 12:56 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
[...]
> 3. No problem, the distinction between Alice's deployment and Bob's
> can be expressed as properties of the URIs (or rather of what the
> server(s) involved do with the two URIs), not the thing they name. We
> might postulate an entity what-an-HTTP-origin-does-with-a-URI that
> could be the possessor of the relevant properties (similar to Pat
> Hayes 'computational doppelganger' [1] I think):
>   [rdf:type awwsw:What-an-HTTP-origin-does-with-a-URI;
>    awwsw:origin-host-name "example.org";
>    awwsw:target-URI "http://example.org/a"^^xsd:anyURI ]
>   rdf:type awwsw:FRBR-well-behaved.

Another (simpler?) way to look at that is: No problem; what Alice's
server returns and what Bob's server returns are both representations
of Moby Dick; one is more high-fidelity than the other, just like
a hi-res jpeg image is more high-fidelity than a low-res jpeg image.

And yes...

> 3. forces tedious explanation of the relation of a resource to 200
> responses in any situation where someone might care;

But I don't see how you get as far as:

>  and is a
> rejection of the idea that a corresponds-to assertion is falsifiable,
> which is a premise of the httpRange-14 decision

Do you mean "falsifiable by looking only at http traffic"?
If so, then perhaps I'd agree.

> 4. rejects the 'semantic web' ideal that URI reference ought to be
> context-insensitive and that you ought to be able to integrate
> information coming from different sources in a straightfoward manner
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2007Oct/0059.html
> [2] http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm

Ah! finally! A good pointer for FRBR. I have been having the hardest
time finding the actual definitions of FRBR work and such.

"... abridgements or enlargements of an existing text, or the addition
of parts or an accompaniment to a musical composition are considered to
be different expressions of the same work."

That sheds light on the example above, since the representations
from Bob's servers seem to be abridgements, i.e. different
expressions... oh... I see you said as much in your message.

That supports position 2 to some extent.

Still, I think web architecture itself only loosely constrains Bob;
to reliably make inferences or find contradictions, a community
should layer some conventions on top. e.g. define "transparent
web page" or "faithful web page" to be a FRBR expression whose
representations are manifestations of that expression.
But web architecture in general includes facebook and such;
i.e. communities that don't give a flip about FRBR or reliability
of archival metadata.


> (p.s. I'm probably being sloppy in my application of FRBR; after all a
> FRBR manifestation of Moby Dick can have advertising in it, and thus
> be "about" whale lice even if the corresponding expression isn't. But
> hoping you get the idea.)
> 
> I have no stake in any particular outcome, I just want a story that
> makes sense, and nothing does right now. Sorry if I'm being dense or
> fickle and thanks for staying with me. I hope I'm still bringing new
> material.
> 
> 


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 1 April 2010 20:58:09 UTC