Re: Requirements for Any Theory of "Information Resource"

David Booth wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 14:36 -0500, David Booth wrote:
>> I thought I would take this opportunity to provide some feedback on
>> Jonathan's draft: Requirements for Any Theory of "Information Resource".
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/20110225 
> . . . 
> 
> One more comment:
> 
> 12. BTW, I like your idea of talking about "authorized" representations
> of an IR.  That's what specs like 2616 assume (or specify), but given
> the amount of confusion that has been caused by scenarios where hardware
> or software malfunctions, or a web site is cracked or mis-configured, I

intermediaries like caches? man in the middle attacks? badly configured 
ISPs / network intermediaries which modify to add tracking code or ads?

> think it is good to make this explicit.  This also leads toward talking
> about what *should* people in various situations do, i.e., what are
> their social responsibilities if they are to "play nicely" in the
> semantic web community.  For example: 
> 
>  - What are the responsibilities of the URI owner, when minting a URI?
> 
>  - What are the responsibilities of an RDF statement author, who makes
> use of a URI in an RDF statement?
> 
>  - How should an RDF consumer determine the intended meaning of a URI
> that was used in an RDF statement?
> 
>  - What should an RDF statement author do if a URI has been compromised
> (e.g., if the domain has been sold and the URI is reused for an
> unrelated purpose)?  What should an RDF consumer do?
> 
> I think these are the kinds of questions that we should eventually be
> able to address.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 21:52:16 UTC