W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

From: Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:04:00 -0600
Message-ID: <4DF972A0.8000509@openguid.net>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Apologies if my keyboard sneered at you, though comparing an application 
problem to 1% of hr14 at web scale hardly trivializes it; certainly it 
does the opposite.  Good luck preserving your mental model if you 
require webmasters to spell Korzybski.

On 6/15/2011 6:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
>
>> I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw.  The current scheme is a burden on publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish to "refer to these information resources themselves", making them "unable to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF".
>>
>> What about minting a new URI at "http://information.resourcifier.net/encodedURI" or similar for talking about such things?  The service could even add value by tracking last update times, content types, encodings, etc.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> p.s. Don't bother criticizing the half baked idea, I thought about it for<  10 seconds.  The point is 100 alternatives could have been hashed out in the time spent discussing and implementing http-range-14.
> I confess to finding this kind of sneering remark rather annoying. If you think it is this trivial to work out some 'alternative', why don't you come up with a few actual ideas and see what happens when they get a little peer review? Your idea, above, hardly makes first base, as Im sure you already realized when you added the p.s. So why not try inventing one that has a snowballs chance in hell of actually working? Im sure that the world would be delighted if you could solve this trivial problem in 5 ways, let alone a hundred.
>
> If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write classical model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You might want to start by reading Korzybski's 'General Semantics'.
>
> Pat
>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:04:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:13 UTC