Re: {Disarmed} Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

sigh. Thanks for the explanations, even if they fail to increase my joy.

Seems like we'd need some reasoning that knows that ranges & domains of 
something are an information resource, not an information resource, or 
either. With a bit of logic that says that statements on an information 
resource which can't be on an information resource should be treated as 
applying to their primary-topic rather than be disregarded.

I get a headache trying to work out the details, though. dc:creator can 
certainly refer to a real world thing (eg. the statue of David).

Working out that the following refers to two different entities is 
pretty clever...

<http://totl.net/>
    foaf:member<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cjg/>;
    dc:license<...>;

I can then detect the problem, as it implies the URI is both a document 
and a group and things can't be both. I can detect the issue, but then 
what? There'll be lots of situation where the ambiguity is absolute. eg.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29>  dc:creator<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo>  .

Did he make the statue or the webpage?

I think the other common conflation we'll get is between places & legal 
entities. eg. "The Royal Society", has both members and a lat/long and 
people will naturally muddle them, but we'll need a way to unpick that. 
(I assume)




On 13/06/11 14:41, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2011, at 13:02, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
>> Option one is to read that as
>> <http://totl.net/>  foaf:member<http://<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cjg/>  .
>> which is not true
> Whether it's true or not is up to the URI owner, because they get to decide what http://totl.net/ identifies.
>
>> and prevents us making any statements about the documents directly (ie. license, creator, last modified)
> How so? Look:
>
> <http://totl.net/>
>     foaf:member<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cjg/>;
>     dc:license<...>;
>     dc:creator<...>;
>     dc:modified "..."^^xsd:date.
>
> Web pages don't have members and groups of people don't have licenses. Anyone with a minimum of intelligence -- human or machine -- can work that out.
>
>> What might work better is if you have new predicates which explicitly means<the primary topic of this document has a member who is the primary topic of...>
> That would work, and I've used that pattern in the past [1], but try explaining that to someone outside this mailing list or writing it down in JSON.
>
>> This is more or less what schema.org seems to be doing, if I've understood correctly...
> No, they just don't give a damn that the same URI ends up being used for a document and a thing.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> [1] http://vocab.sindice.com/xfn

-- 
Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248

/ Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/
/ Web Projects Manager, ECS, University of Southampton, http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
/ Webmaster, Web Science Trust, http://www.webscience.org/

Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 15:04:44 UTC