Re: Annotating IR of any relevance? (httpRange-14)

On 26 March 2012 08:51, Giovanni Tummarello
<giovanni.tummarello@deri.org> wrote:
> Is annotating IRs is of *any value practical and role today* ?
>
> Anything of value and core interest to  wikipedia, imdb, bestbuy, bbc,
> geonames, rottentomatoes, lastfm, facebook, whatever. is a  NIR.
>
> We are talking people, products
>
> Everything on the LOD cloud (for what it matters) its all NIR
>
> Even pictures, comments, and text are easiy seen and BEST INTERPRETED as NIR
>
> they're not just the bytes they're composed of, they're the full
> record of their creation, the concept of message.
> a facebook picture is a full record of content, comments, tags,
> multiple resolutions etc.
> The mere stream OF BYTES (the IR) IS JUST A DeTAIL that if it REALLY
> needs to be annotated, ... it can. no problem, with proper attributes
> "hasResolution, hascopyright" ok i guess that refers to a IR then.

I see where you're coming from here, but will be agnostic for now on
that point. Instead, I'd like to draw attention to the distressing
fact that we don't even seem as a community to be clear on what is
meant by IR? Is IR "the mere stream of BYTES", .. or some (slightly)
higher abstraction. The OO picture of HTTP/REST I mentioned here
recently, for example, has the IR be the hidden-behind-service object
whose state we get authoritative samples of via HTTP messages.

Making a new http-range-14 agreement without having a common
terminology doesn't fill me with hope. Quite different notions of IR
are bouncing around here.

I tend to read 'IR' as something approximating 'Web-serializable
networked entity'; sounds like you're equating it more directly with
the content that is sent over the wire?

Dan

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 11:18:17 UTC