- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:49:42 -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 21:03 -0500, 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. > > (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. Oops! I should have read ahead. Sorry I sent my last message before I saw this one. David > > 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 > >> > > > >
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 02:50:10 UTC