W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: ldp-ISSUE-15 (sharing binary resources and metadata): sharing binary resources and metadata [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:26:54 -0400
Message-ID: <507201AE.8050603@openlinksw.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 10/7/12 6:08 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 10/7/12 2:40 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 10/7/12 1:52 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>>> Sorry Kingsley but I have to side with others on this issue. 
>>> Resource is undeniably the term that is commonly in use for the web 
>>> and the W3C is using (see Architecture of the World Wide Web [1] and 
>>> W3C's index of terms [2]). LDP is not the place to depart from it.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/Architecture/Terms.html
>>>
>>> I also have to say that I'm puzzled by your claim that "entity" is 
>>> not overloaded. Looking at W3C's index of terms again I see it 
>>> already has several possible definitions, none of which are the one 
>>> you refer to.
>>>
>>> But I appreciate your desire to bridge communities and if you were 
>>> interested in developing a document that explains how the different 
>>> terminologies relate to one another this would be a valuable 
>>> contribution. We could reference it from the LDP WG page and maybe 
>>> make it an annex to the spec. Is this something you would be 
>>> interested in doing?
>>
>> Here is a simple example that spells out the problem.
>>
>> Dret wants to express the following in natural language:
>>
>> A document can describe something.
>>
>> Ahok: please note, the statement above has nothing to do with a URI 
>> resolving to content in a variety of formats.
>>
>> Dret's quest expressed differently in Turtle notation (I've left out 
>> the prefix declarations for sake of brevity):
>>
>> <> <#Describes> <#SomeThing> .
>>
>> The statement above represents a basic entity relationship held 
>> together by the predicate: <#Describes> .
>>
>> The description of <#Describes> is as follows:
>>
>> <#Describes> <#Type> <#Property>.
>> <#Describes> <#Domain> <#AnyThing> .
>> <#Describes> <#Range> <#AnyThing> .
>> <#Describes> <#Label> "Describes" .
>> <#Describes> <#Comments> "A predicate that associates an entity of 
>> type: Document, with a Description Subject." .
>>
>> # Cross Reference with shared vocabularies or ontologies
>>
>> <#Type> owl:equivalentProperty rdf:type .
>> <#Domain> owl:equivalentProperty rdfs:domain .
>> <#Range> owl:equivalentProperty rdfs:range .
>> <#Describes> owl:inverseOf wdrs:describedby
>>
>> According to Dret. and those of you that support his views, for sake 
>> of being consistent with broken literature, you are implying that:
>>
>> 1. <> -- which denotes a resource .
>> 2. <#Describes> -- denotes a resource .
>> 3. <#SomeThing> -- denotes a resource.
>>
>> To those that can parse this view point, you are missing the fact 
>> nobody instinctively assumes a human being is a resource when there 
>> is no sense of realm partitioning i.e., the Web is an electronic 
>> medium distinct from the real-world.
>>
>> All I am saying is that existing literature and basic human instincts 
>> align much more clearly when literature expresses the fact that:
>>
>> 1. <> -- denotes an entity of type: document .
>> 2. <#Describes> -- denotes a entity of type: predicate.
>> 3. <#SomeThing> -- denotes an entity of type: anything (owl:Thing) 
>> e.g.., a  person, organization, or any other thing.
>>
>>
>> Right now (even after all the historic data to the contrary re. 
>> coherence) you still want to pack all this clarity into the obscurity 
>> of the overloaded use of "resource" . For what its worth, the content 
>> of a Web document is the resource (the data). De-referencable URIs 
>> (as denotation mechanisms) enable triangulation to actual content 
>> (the resource or data) via indirection. Note, indirection is 
>> fundamental feature that precedes the Web e.g., its delivered via 
>> pointers using unary operators "&" and "*" in the 'C' programming 
>> language, for instance.
>>
>> Anyway, I've expressed my point. I am moving on.
>>
>> Kingsley 
> Little correction:
>
> The description of <#Describes> is as follows:
>
> <#Describes> <#Type> <#Property>.
> <#Describes> <#Domain> xsd:anyURI .
> <#Describes> <#Range> xsd:anyURI .
> <#Describes> <#Label> "Describes" .
> <#Describes> <#Comments> "A predicate that associates an entity of 
> type: Document, with a Description Subject." .
>
>
One more correction:
<#Describes> <#Type> <#Property>.
<#Describes> <#Domain> foaf:Document .
<#Describes> <#Range> xsd:anyURI .
<#Describes> <#Label> "Describes" .
<#Describes> <#Comments> "A predicate that associates an entity of type: 
Document, with a Description Subject." .


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen





Received on Sunday, 7 October 2012 22:27:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC