- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:27:08 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, Max Völkel <voelkel@fzi.de>
Ivan, On 29 Nov 2007, at 12:22, Ivan Herman wrote: >> 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...) Yes, this is already done. The relation between "web document" and "information resource" is explained in the main text. The term "non-information resource" does not occur in any W3C publication and should simply be forgotten. Richard > > > 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 >
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 13:27:25 UTC