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

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:17:45 -0400
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1300213065.1954.38015.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 11:39 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:16 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> >> 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.
> OK, I've tried to fix this problem. Check the latest. The section
> still needs some work, and could really benefit from input from
> someone who is proposing any solution similar to this.

Thanks, the latest text is clearer.  But I think this one will have be
subdivided into at least three options for how the "distinguishing mark"
that would indicate that u should refer to WS(u) instead of IR(u) could
be indicated:

1. By the Content-type.  Since *any* content type could be viewed as a
serialization of RDF, it would have to sanction specific content types
to have this special meaning, which would inhibit the growth of new RDF

2. In some other HTTP header.  This option would suffer from the same
drawback as 303: that publishers cannot always control their server

3. In the returned content itself.  But this would be non-monotonic, as
a reader that did not initially understand the content would take the u
to refer to IR(u), but later when greater knowledge is gained through
semantic extensions
those assertions would have to be revoked.

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 18:18:14 UTC

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