Re: summary so far.

sorry, lot's of mails - things are just clicking at last!

each URI <u> is bound to a thing T by a set of agents SA (naming process)
   <u> refers to T

some URIs are bound to a set of representations SR over time by the 
dereferencing process
   <u> refers to T, SR

we'll assign the name RB to this class of URIs which are bound to both a 
T and an SR

where T == SR this forms the a subclass of RB which we'll call IR 
(information resources)

Tim:
   for all <u> in RB, T == SR
   (all members RB are members of IR, doesn't account for T != SR)

Roy:
   SR is bound to T not <u>
   (means T == SR && T != SR)

Other views:
   <u> is bound to T, and T != SR
   (SR is unbound to any name, or bound to "some other name")

   <u> is bound to SR, and T != SR
   (T is unbound to any name, or bound to "some other name")

   <u> is bound to T, SR and T != SR
   (can't use deref URIs as names - URI collision, or chimera)

Think we can catalogue any view point possible in to one of the above.

Best,

Nathan

Nathan wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> Nathan wrote:
>>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> each URI is optionally bound to a set of representations over time, 
>>> each representation is anonymous (only existentially quantified) by 
>>> default (*) and late bound to the URI as a product of the 
>>> dereferencing process, thus if one representation has been bound to a 
>>> specific URI then that URI belongs to the class of things for which 
>>> representations have been bound. I'll that class of things RB for now 
>>> (has a [R]epresentation [B]ound).
>>>
>>> * given two identical representations, you cannot tell what they are 
>>> representations of, if they are representations of the same thing, or 
>>> two different things.
>>>
>>> Okay, I used representation above to mean content+meta, nothing more, 
>>> nothing less, and doesn't mean that it's a "representation" of 
>>> anything. I've purposefully not used the term information resource, 
>>> because at this moment in time I can't bring myself to say any more 
>>> than there are URIs, some URIs have had content+meta's bound to them, 
>>> and thus we could make a proper subclass which is the class of all 
>>> URIs for which a content+meta has been bound.
>>
>> for all URI <u> in class RB, <u> is bound to a set SR of 
>> representations {Ri,i=1...n}, and to a Thing.
> 
> if T == SR then it's an information resource.
> 
> in english, if <u> is consistently used to that which is reflected by 
> the set of representations over time, then <u> refers to an information 
> resource.
> 
> the problem is that often T != SR, and <u> is used to refer to T, which 
> means you can't refer to SR, and to that, there is no solution. 
> Compounding it, is that if some agents use <u> to refer to SR, then 
> there's ambiguity. And compounding that, is that even if we introduce a 
> rule where T == SR, then some agents will still use <u> to refer to 
> something that by the rule isn't named.
> 
> it's clearly a problem in the domain of agents :p
> 
> going to check all this against IR axioms.
> 
> nathan
> 
>> for all URI <u> in class RB, there exists a set SA of agents 
>> {Ai,i=1...n} for which <u> is a name for SR or T.
>>
>> hashes [
>>   for some <u> in class RB there exists a class of sub-URIs of the 
>> form <u#f>.
>>   for all <u#f> in <u>, <u#f> is bound to SR.
>>   if there exists 1...n <u#f> in <u>, then <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
>>   for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
>> ] (
>>  - easy
>>  - doesn't cover the cases where you can't use <u#f>
>>  - it's still true that:
>>     for some a in SA, <u> refers to T
>>     for some a in SA, <u> refers to SR
>>     for some <u> in class RB, T != SR.
>>     for some <u> in class RB, T == SR.
>> )
>>
>> slashes [
>>   for some a in SA, <u> refers to T
>>   for some a in SA, <u> refers to SR
>>   for some <u> in class RB, T != SR.
>>   for some <u> in class RB, T == SR.
>>   if T == SR then for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR and T == SR.
>>   if T != SR and no a in SA uses <u> for SR, then <u> refers to T.
>>   if T != SR and some a in SA uses <u> for SR, then T == SR && T != SR.
>> ] (
>>  - the problem
>> )
>>
>> if any of the following conditions is true, then there no problem:
>>
>>   if T == SR
>>   for all a in SA, <u> refers to T
>>   for all a in SA, <u> refers to SR
>>
>> the only "fix" is to make ( for all <u> in RB, T == SR ) universally 
>> true (<u> == IR), or make it universally false ( can't use <u> as a 
>> name). there's no way to enforce either.
>>
>> There is one vital question here though, if T != SR, is there anything 
>> one could even say about SR, the only things that could be said, would 
>> be those that would be true for all R in SR, which isn't much if 
>> anything - can we identify what these things are?
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:58:54 UTC