- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:20:23 -0400
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 20:51 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > >[ . . . ] But then we would also have to define what 'content' and > 'description' meant. I have a feeling that might prove just as > slippery and ultimately unhelpful as 'information resource'. Agreed. As long as there's an attempt to define a difference between the two, we'll be mired in the same impossible > I disagree. I've been able to reverse engineer a semantics [1] for > 'content' that matches the original RDF design (for metadata, [2]) and > what I think was *intended* by httpRange-14(a). The 'information > resource' definition is just really unactionable; perhaps reparable > but I don't think repairing it would help much since that's not even > the issue. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-971002/ A semantics for 'content'? That's not at all what I read in [1]. Did you mean to reference some other document? I think [1] describes an excellent way to formalize what it means to write an assertion about an information resource (though it's called a "generic information entity" in that document instead of "information resource"). But it only uses the term 'content' three times in the body, and only in passing. And it *never* defines the term. In what sense do you think it defines a semantics for 'content'? -- 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 Friday, 30 March 2012 02:20:47 UTC