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

Re: Diagram of it all

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:47:33 -0600
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Message-Id: <10AB0F6C-751E-4204-B22F-59C8D3F77D58@ihmc.us>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>

On Mar 4, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> Sorry, thatlast message of mine was a bit broken as a graph has an
> unbounded number of serializations, so I would have to come up with
> some property (among the ones I'm willing to call a 'metadata
> property') shared by all serializations, that the graph itself didn't
> possess.

Well, how about being a serialization, ie something encoded in a byte stream? That is shared by all serializations but false of the graph.


> (When I say "property" in this context I don't mean "RDF property," I
> mean something more like DL value restriction - technically those are
> classes, not properties.)
> But I bet there is one that is not a mere type error.
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> 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.)
>> 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

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 02:49:28 UTC

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