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

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

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:52:51 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ERf4eHCwo8jAcEkiLaKr8s1rbMsgBmYitZJyR@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
I guess my question is: Under "take it at face value," many URIs are
supposed to be taken to refer to WS(u). So, under what set of
circumstances, if any, will an automaton be able to detect that URI is
supposed to refer to IR(u)?

In the absence of any reliable, general rule, I would think that "face
value" requires that you *must* use clumsy notation [:accessibleVia
"http://example/doc"] to refer to IR(u), no matter what u is. That is
- if you assumed IR(u), you would risk being surprised by some new RDF
media type or embedding, e.g. RDF inside image metadata saying that
the URI doesn't refer to the image. So you would never be able to
assume it.

To me this is so incompatible and inconvenient that it would rule out
"face value" (except in the "chimera" case - which seems to rule out
FOAF home pages). So I don't know how to reconcile it with easy
publishing.  (although I consider suffix-# and chimera to be perfectly
good alternatives, so I'm not too worried about it.)

What I need help with is in determining what exactly is being
proposed, in conjunction with "face value", in regard to referring to
IR(u). Nothing I've thought of seems reasonable, and that makes it
very hard to document any sometimes-IR sometimes-WS approach.

I wonder if "no interoperability" should be listed as an option. It's
slightly different from "chimera" in that it says the URI means
different things to different applications - you just have to take
your pick and hope that you never come across anyone who speaks the
other language.


On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> We need someone who can champion the  "just take it at face value"
>> approach; I don't know how to make it sound viable. I had been hoping
>> Nathan could play that role... We could recruit someone now, or just
>> publish and hope someone turns up afterwards to defend the position.
> I can't tout it as my personal preference, but I can certainly write
> something which champions it to a degree, suggests that it's how some people
> will deploy data, and makes it worth considering - if that helps?
> Best,
> Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 11:53:24 UTC

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