Re: information resource note #573

On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 18:06 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> After struggling for a few days, and rewriting several times, I now
> have a note on 'information resources' ready for your perusal.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/

Comments:

1. I think this is a significant step forward, because it is focused on
the usage goal: to be able to write metadata assertions.  It really
starts to tie together several of the things we've been discussing for
months.  I am not sure it will yet be understandable by a general
audience though.  I think the presentation may need to be improved a
bit: tightening up terminology, making it more consistent, and
explaining relationships with existing terms.

2. I'm not sure that defining an IR as "something that can be the
subject of metadata assertions" gives much more clarity than defining it
as something whose essential characteristics can be conveyed in a
message.  However, since writing metadata assertions is a key goal, I
think it does make sense to come at it from that angle.

3. I think it may still be necessary to connect this metadata-oriented
definition with the Fielding-esque view (which I share) that an IR is
something that can produce awww:Representations.  In this view it is a
role in an architectural model.  Hmm, maybe this happens later, in
section 3.  Maybe a forward reference is needed earlier?

4. I think it is critical that the definition of IR not say that it is
disjoint with anything.  Rather, it should be treated like a marker
class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marker_interface_pattern
However, particular applications may add assertions making IR disjoint
with other classes.  This document doesn't get into this question
explicitly at all, but it does come up implicitly, because the AWWW
definition clearly does suggest some disjointness.  I think it would be
best to address this head on.

5. This statement: "Metadata might be stated of any kind of information
entity" is sounding closer to the AWWW definition of IR.   It also hints
at the connection between the metadata view and the Fielding-esque view,
since a awww:Representation is information.

6. In section 2 paragraph that begins "The same metadata may apply to
multiple information entities", I think it would be good to mention
variants, as described in RFC 2616.

7. The diagram in section 3 uses the term "generalizes" where
"hasRepresentation" might also appear.  Somehow the terms need to be
related.

8. Minor suggested edits:

s/rhetorical practice/practice/

s/The note/This note/

Change: "First, the idea of generic entities that have metadata is
introduced without any particular reference to the Web."
to: "First, without any particular reference to the Web, it introduces
the idea of generic entities that have metadata."

s/where metadata that does not name/where metadata does not name/

s/Eliabeth/Elizabeth/

Regarding "if G generalizes S": it would be good to say what S and G
are.

Regarding 'G is "on the Web" at U': again, it would be good to say what
G is.



-- 
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, 10 May 2011 13:09:35 UTC