Re: need editing help on the cool URI document

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
> Leo,
> 
> On 28 Nov 2007, at 10:15, Leo Sauermann wrote:
>> For this issue, a discussion would be good,
>>     • issue-non-informationresource web document VS information
>> resource. We stand alone (with friendly smiles from timbl) on the term
>> "web document", both the SWD and Noah do not like "web document". As
>> this is W3C note, we should think about dropping the term "web
>> document" from the document and instead only mention it at the
>> beginning and then use "information resource" and "non-information
>> resource". We should phrase a new introduction sentence on the
>> difference, but its tricky to use non-information resource for
>> "concept uris" and "information resource" for webdocument/ document
>> uris. At the end, everything is information, also a document and a
>> concept.
> 
> I'm strongly opposed to changing this terminology.
> 
> "Non-information resource" is possibly the most unfortunate term ever
> used in discussions of web architecture, and we should quickly forget
> that it ever existed. It is a disaster.
> 
> "Information resource" is an official engineering term, but
> inappropriate for an introductory document.
> 
> The terms we currently use, "thing"/"other resource" and "web document"
> are appropriate, sufficiently well-explained and correct. The
> terminology has support from key TAG members, including TimBL. I don't
> think that anything needs to be changed with regard to these terms.
> 

Even if you choose to keep it that way, a note relating these terms to
the current terms used in http-14 is useful. It can be a note in the
appendix, but let us not pretend those terms are not in use (regardless
of their value, whether people like them or not...)

I.

>> For this, I would ask TAG or SWD for help:
>>     • example rules of thumb how to distinguish between document
>> identifiers and concept identifiers (information and non-information
>> resources). Write some wget examples that do that? Leo thinks we did
>> not cover the crucial point yet: what is the definitive test to get a
>> URI for a non-information resource? Range-14 says: "If an "http"
>> resource responds to a GET request with a 303 (See Other) response,
>> then the resource identified by that URI could be any resource;" Or is
>> this such a problem at all? At the end the RDF:Type says what is what.
>> I would put that into the 4.6. implementation section.
> 
> I think this has been answered exhaustively in TAG list discussions:
> HTTP status codes can only distinguish between two kinds of URIs, "URIs
> identifying a web document" and "URIs identifying something that may be
> described inside a web document". Note that documents can describe other
> documents, hence documents can be identified by URIs in both categories.
> The question you are asking is not answerable (and not that interesting)
> in web architecture.
> 
> Do you think the draft needs clarification in this regard?
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
>>
>> best
>> Leo
>> -- 
>> ____________________________________________________
>> DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann
>>
>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer
>> Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
>> Trippstadter Strasse 122
>> P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
>> D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
>> Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de
>>
>> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
>> Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>> Dr. Walter Olthoff
>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
>> ____________________________________________________
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf