- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:48:27 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 20:52 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote: > 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.) Hold on. Your axioms put simple-IRs in the same category as IRs -- not the same category as representations. You can't compare graphs with serializations. They're in different categories. David > > 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 02:48:55 UTC