- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:52:03 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Did you spot the contradiction, in one of your diagrams, to my axioms? In my little world, if a resource has only one representation, then much of what you say about the representation has to also be true of the resource - for example, whether its content contains the letter 'x'. This rules out the resource being an RDF graph, and the representation being a serialization of it, since for any serialization, there are almost certainly characters that occur in it, but not in the graph. (You could probably carefully construct a graph and a serialization of it that contained the same letters, but then I would pick a different metadata property, and go through the argument again.) This shows that TimBL's intuition that RDF graphs mustn't be information resources follows logically from a strong stance on metadata generation and interpretation. Without a connection as strong as this, I'm not sure that the httpRange-14 rule is worth the trouble, since theories weaker than this have no "teeth" and are not good for much. I wish I were wrong, but I don't think I am. Jonathan On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > > inspired by jonathan's last diagram - attached, and uploaded here: > > http://i.imgur.com/gzIf0.jpg >
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 01:52:36 UTC