Re: please review issue-57 document draft before Tuesday telcon

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:16 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 21:06 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> Not perfect but here it is...
>>
>> "How to refer to something using a URI"
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20110313/
>
>
>
> 00. We've accumulated a lot of unfinished documents.  I think we need to
> focus in more on *one* of them -- How about this one?  -- and finish it.

That's exactly what I've been doing... I think we discussed this on a telcon.

We'll pick up the ontology thread after this document gets released.

> 0. Limit the scope to RDF.  That's the use case that has been motivating
> this, and we'll get more clarity if we can be more specific.

I'd be happy to entertain suggestions to make the presentation more
concrete and readable, but it's very important to make clear that this
is a webarch issue, not something in the jurisdiction of RDF.
Currently RDF and OWL are the only languages (of which I'm aware) that
care, but this may not be true in 5 or 10 years. Also if webarch loses
RDF then the entire program of a global namespace is considerably
weakened, so those who care about webarch need to be alerted that this
affects them.

> 0. A summary table of options may help, with links to

Was going to put that at the end. Just not done yet.

> 1. In sec 1.2 Glossary, in some cases you talk of "specializations" and
> in other cases you talk of "versions", and "specialization" is not
> defined.

Thanks for catching this. I've changed them all to "version".

> 2. Sec 2 in general: I think this section could benefit from referring
> to the roles (URI owner, statement author, consumer) described in
> http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/#roles

I'm calling these roles "Alice", "Bob", and "Carol".

The "URI owner" theory is an unnecessary distraction.

> 3. Sec 2.2 this sentence doesn't make sense to me, because AFAIK,
> Alice's account does not describe a document, it describes a mynah: "The
> referent is not the account that Alice publishes, it is the document
> that Alice's account describes."

The sentence is correct as written. I've changed "document" to
"information resource".

> 4. Regarding section 3.5:
> [[
> 3.5 Cite your sources
> Whenever using a URI to refer to something, provide a link to the
> document that carries an account of the URI's meaning. This is the
> approach taken by OWL (owl:imports). The rdfs:definedBy property could
> also be used for this purpose.
>
> Both of these properties beg the question in that they do not say how to
> figure out what the target URI refers to.
> ]]
>
> Do you mean that they beg question because they do not specify what to
> do after one has obtained the document that carries an account of the
> URI's meaning?   Or do you mean that they beg the question because they
> do not say how to determine the document's URI, for example in a case
> like this:
>
>  <x> rdfs:definedBy _:aBnode .

          Both of these properties beg the question in that
   they do not say how to figure out what the URI that is the
   target of owl:imports or rdfs:definedBy refers to. If the
   meaning of <emph>that</emph> URI were given by citing a source,
   there would be infinite regress.

> 5. In sec 3.7:
> [[
> [Is anyone, in practice, deploying 303 redirects to a "primary topic"
> page not mentioning the URI to be accounted for, rather than to be a
> document that explicitly mentions the URI?]
> ]]
> The delegation of authority at http://thing-described-by.org/ says
> (among other things):
> http://thing-described-by.org/#Delegation_of_Authority
> [[
> b. If dereferencing u yields content that does not explicitly specify
> what resource http://thing-described-by.org/?u names, then
> http://thing-described-by.org/?u names the primary subject of that
> content.
> ]]

Sure, but my question remains, is anyone using this?

I'll add some text that says pretty much what you said. This is a
pretty fragile architecture if you ask me... but that's OK.

> 6. Sec 3.6 'Hash URI' needs to say something about the media type, since
> at present the AWWW delegates authority for defining the meaning of the
> URI to the media type.

Added a reference to AWWW 3.2

> 7.  Sec 5.7 "Overload dereference, and use response properties to
> distinguish the two cases" mentions "two cases", so I looked back to see
> what the "two cases" are.  I think the two cases are these:
>
> Given a document d that is hosted at URI u and describes subject s, what
> conventions should be used to refer to d and s?  I.e., for a given
> dereferenceable URI u, what conventions should be used to refer to IR(u)
> and WS(u)?

No, the two cases are, does u refer to IR(u), or to WS(u)?
I thought this is what the first paragraph says... not sure how to
make it more clear.

Thanks for the comments! You can see what I did here:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/

Jonathan

> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 14:45:24 UTC