- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:07:56 +0000
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
http://markmail.org/message/3yfdephotcgzl5my http://markmail.org/message/3civs7lra4osy3z2 what you say, seems to contradict the above messages - and, I'm quite sure is unprovable, a poem certainly doesn't have a <p> and a <br> and <html> as part of it's content, likewise every document, book, well everything of any use really. 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.) > > 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 12:10:15 UTC