W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: on documents and terms [was: RE: [WNET] new proposal WN URIs and related issues]

From: Mark van Assem <mark@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:35:23 +0300
Message-ID: <4448DF9B.9030304@few.vu.nl>
To: David Wood <dwood@softwarememetics.com>
CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, Guus Schreiber <guus@few.vu.nl>, Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>

Hi all,

Based on these discussions it seems there is no clear consensus and will 
not be in the near future. To make the WordNet draft [1] neutral on this 
issue I will move all the material concerning redirects (also for 
supporting different WordNet versions) to the Issues list. The ideas we 
generated are then not lost and can be reintroduced later if they are 
deemed appropriate.

All the URIs in the document [1] will be pointing directly at RDF in W3C 
space. We will set up the RDF at those URIs as soon as possible (I have 
to regenerate the RDF with the new URIs, change the schemas; Ralph has 
to set up the server-side; we have to implement the CBDs) after the new 
WN draft is published.

Mark.

[1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html

David Wood wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This message contains my /personal/ opinions on this discussion.
> 
> On 20 Apr2006, at 17:40, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>>> From:  Pat Hayes
>>>
>>> It might be best to start with a definition of what you consider an
>>> information resource to be. Since the TAG do not define this critical
>>> term, yet base important engineering decisions on it, any
>>> authoritative exposition would be of immense value. My current
>>> understanding is that an information resource is some thing that can
>>> be transmitted over a network by a transfer protocol. On this
>>> understanding, one could argue that a word was an information
>>> resource.
>>
>> Definitely not.  That would be a "representation", not an "information
>> resource".  The information resource is the *source* of
>> "representations" that can be transmitted over a network.
>>
>> I have also been struggling with trying to guess what the TAG meant an
>> "information resource" to be, or more notably, what the TAG meant it to
>> exclude.  FWIW, here is my proposed working definition of the day:
>>
>>     An information resource is all and only a logical HTTP
>>     endpoint that is intended to serve representations with
>>     a 2xx response code.
>>
>> Note that:
>>
>>     - If something is never intended to return a 2xx response
>>     code then it is not an information resource.
> 
> I see no evidence whatsoever that the relationship between a 2xx 
> response and an information resource was intended to be defined as 
> commutative (or inverse functional) by [8].
> 
>>     - It is "logical", not physical.
>>
>>     - It is "all and only" because it does NOT include anything
>>     else that might be attached to that information resource.
>>
>> By this definition, a resource that is an "information resource" cannot
>> also be any other kind of resource.  This means, for example, that an
>> information resource cannot also be a person or Dan's car.  However, it
>> could be a part of Dan's car, or it could be associated with a person.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>> To be specific, [8] tells us that the URIs we choose for each of the
>>>> WordNet synsets, word senses, and words MUST be served with
>>>> a 303 See Other response.
>>>
>>> [8] does not use the word MUST, and again, I suggest that it would be
>>> a serious, indeed disastrous, error, to interpret it this strongly.
>>
>> I think you're quibbling here.  The difference between RFC2119 terms
>> "SHOULD" and "MUST" is that "SHOULD" permits exceptions to a general
>> rule in particular circumstances, whereas "MUST" does not.  But you seem
>> to be arguing against the general rule -- not for an exception.
> 
> I do not think that Pat was quibbling at all.  Perhaps he comments are 
> worth another read.
> 
> Please note that a 303 response may be returned for any kind of 
> resource, including information resources.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> -- 
> http://prototypo.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 13:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:19 UTC