Re: NIR SIDETRACK Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 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'?

Tim's 'content' ~= my 'instance'

I thought that was clear from the way I've been saying "content /
instance" and "content (instance)" and "instance (content)" in my
emails

I've started using Tim's word since people listen more closely to him
than they do to me.

Jonathan

Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 11:13:07 UTC