Re: AWWSW vs. httpRange-14

Hi Jonathan,

I want to see if I am properly understanding what you mean, so I'll
reflect back a bit for you to verify or correct.

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 10:38 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> In my current view there are two issues:
> 
> 1. What notation do we use to write a reference to an 'information resource'?

Do you mean an *explicit* reference, such as <http://example/#foo> in
the following RDF statement:

  <http://example/#foo> a :InformationResource .

Or do you mean an *implicit* reference, by virtue of the fact that an
HTTP GET on that URI yielded a 200 status?

  <http://example/bar> :createdOn "2009-12-31"^^xsd:date .

where a GET on http://example/bar yields a 200 response with a document.

Or do you mean both?  Or something else?

> 2. What does such a reference mean, such that it can be used to good
> effect in various kinds of statements (eg. Dublin Core, FOAF, CC REL)?

Do mean: "What other RDF assertions should be used if a URI is used in
an RDF statement?"?  

If so, this sounds right up the ally of "Statement author responsibility
3" and "Consumer responsibility 5" in
http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/



> 
> Clearly these interact, but pretend for a minute that they don't.
> 
> #1 is related to Harry's complaint that # and 303 are too hard; he
> doesn't like it that we use dereferenceable URIs as references to
> information resources, because he thinks those URIs can be put to
> better use.  (IIUC.)
> 
> #2 was the complaint that created AWWSW: If I *do* use a term (URI or
> anything else) referring to an "information resource" in a proposition
> (metadata), what do I mean, even if the webarch is assumed; and might
> we either record or set expectations for their use.
> 
> The TAG was convinced this week that an issue needs to be opened for
> #1, and I will be moving that forward.
> 
> It was already convinced #2 was a question, and that's how AWWSW was
> established.
> 
> I think that Harry and Alan (and Larry Masinter) are saying something
> similar, which is: If it matters whether your meaning is clear, then
> IR references do not stand on their own, as they are inherently
> unclear.  To obtain interoperability, you have to stop talking about
> 'the information resource at a URI' entirely, regardless of how you
> refer to them. IR is a lost cause.
> 
> This cuts both ways. If you want to be clear that you mean to use an
> http: URI to refer to something described in the accessed document,
> you need to write some statements to that effect. 

Such as by owl:imports?

> (This is clearly
> even harder than using # or 303.) If you want to be clear that you
> want it to mean the document, you also need to say something.  (So
> Creative Commons and FOAF would need to retool.)
> 
> In this pessimistic view it's only if you don't care about being clear
> that http: URIs serve as references.
> 
> In either case RDF graph merging (i.e. interoperability) is defeated
> since to merge a graph using a URI in one way with a graph using a URI
> in the other way either one or the other graph would need
> alpha-conversion, a rather nasty procedure.

Pointer to alpha-conversion please?

thanks,
David

> 
> (There is a somewhat different story in the OWL context but I think
> much of this still applies.)
> 
> The way to get interoperability is to stop using http: URIs (or at
> least hashless ones) for reference entirely. In this case we would
> still need a 'web semantics' to provide a vocabulary for talking about
> the documents that we find on the web, and perhaps relating them to
> the things they describe.  So the AWWSW project is in a sense
> independent of the notational question of what RDF terms we use to
> refer to IRs or documents.
> 
> I hope it's clear I haven't completely given up on this as Harry and
> Alan have. However I do consider despair an option.
> 
> By the way I had forgotten about TAG Issue 39
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/39 , which seems to be
> forgotten and forlorn. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to
> track #1 and/or #2 under this issue; I sort of disagree with the
> formulation of the problem and I'm not sure AWWSW is a part of this.
> I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on the relation of our
> work to issue 39.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 19:07:44 UTC