Landscape Notes

> > > 1/ I believe that this group should try to identify the issues that need
> > >    to be resolved.  
> > 
> > I'm ambivalent about that. Time spent building an issues list
> > competes with time spent evaluating solutions.
> 
> Yes. But how can solutions effectively be evaluated without knowing
> the issue/problems that the solutions were meant to solve?

I'm interested in "branch points", places where a use-case/scenario
branches because of something we/the TAG/the W3C might recommend.  I
haven't had much luck coming up with a list though.

I have had more luck coming up with a list of what might be called
"issues", but might also be called "landmarks", because they are more
like common threads to the debate than a typical WG issues list entry.

But anyway, here's what I've got so far....  1-9 are IMO in scope and
10-13 are IMO out of scope.

     -- sandro

================================================================

These are not simple issues and they are not likely to be closed to
everyone's satisfaction in the near future, if ever. They are
instead landmarks helping us navigate the space of decisions that
could be made in this area.  Each "issue" seems to be the focus of
a rough cluster of possible decisions and a common thread of
discussion.  Knowing the landscape may help us avoid getting lost,
and lets us study the problem space in more manageable chunks. 

The names of the issues are necessarily imperfect.  Think of them
as mere mnemonics.
   
Feedback welcome, of course.

1.  What-Is-Identifies

    What is the relationship between a URI and the thing (or things)
    it "identifies"?

    Pat/TimBL - does a URI denote just one thing?   Agreed that URIs
    "work the same" everywhere, or something.

    Issuette: Slipperiness of Intended Meaning
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#fish

    In what contexts are multiple occurances of URI defined to
    mean the same thing"

    Does an URI mean the same thing in every HTML HREF?  Every
    rdf:about/rdf:resource? The same in both?

2.  Use-Implies-Consent

    Does use of a URI as a name in RDF consititue some kind of a
    commitment or consent, either to meaning expressed on the web, or
    intended by a Name-Authority (below)?

    Recent stuff by PFPS.   Consent/Committment/Something.

    This is the most-attacked bit of "Tim's Proposal", whatever that
    is. 

3.  Name-Authority

    Who (if anyone) gets to say what a URI means?

    Recent stuff by Bijan.  
    
    Does someone get special status when to say something about
    something when a particular name is used for it?

    issuette: Authoritative Definition of URIs
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#authority

4.  Communicating-Meaning

    How does one express or convey what a URI means?

    issuette: Defining Information
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#defn

    How can a user learn about something, given a URI for it

5.  What-Is-Representation
    
    How does a thing relate to its HTTP 'representations'?

    What exactly is the "representation" relationship (the
    relationship between the thing a URI "identifies" and the MIME
    Entity/bytestring retrieved as its "representation") ?


6.  Centrality-Of-Predicates

    Do URIs in the predicate position of an RDF triple have some
    special role in the meaning of the triple?

7.  Names-As-Web-Addresses

    Can a URI work as a name in RDF and a web address, giving good
    content in a normal browser?  If so, how?

8.  Layering

    OWL has multiple "levels" (Lite, DL, and Full) which have
    slightly different semantics.  An RDF graph means slightly
    different things depending on which level is intended; is
    this okay?   

    More generally, when (if ever) can the meaning of a term be
    safely extended by another layer?

9.  Change-Over-Time

    What happens if the Name-Authority changes its mind or what it
    says? 
   
10. What-Is-Asserted

    (Out of scope for tag-39; responsibility issue)

    How can you tell which RDF you see is asserted to be true?

    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#assert

11. Commitment-To-Implications

    (Out of scope for tag-39; responsibility issue)

    If someone commits to some RDF, are they also committing to its
    entailments in some logics?   Which logic?

    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#assert

12. Who-Makes-Committment

    (Out of scope for tag-39; responsibility issue)

    If RDF is asserted, perhaps by just being on the web, how can
    you tell who is asserting it?  Who is ultimately responsible?

    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#third

    Signatures may be help here.

13. Affecting-Law

    (Out of scope for tag-39; responsibility issue)

    Should laws be changed to support communication via the semantic
    web?  Should people be given guidence as to how we think laws
    should be interpreted in considering semantic web issues?

    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning#law

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 14:05:49 UTC