W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Diagram of it all

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>
Message-ID: <1299293307.2525.33538.camel@dbooth-laptop>
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.


> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:22 UTC