- From: Ioachim Drugus <sw@semanticsoft.net>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:30:49 -0700
- To: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
- CC: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, Linking Open Data <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
Hi Chris, Before I propose a term, I have to remark that the notion, to which we want to give a name, changed. Now it is "The term XXX refers to the description of a non-information resource that a client obtains by dereferencing a specific URI that identifies this non-information resource". Initially, it was that the term (let's denote it TTT) referred to "information provided by a specific URI owner about a non-information resource". I am not sure that XXX and TTT denote the same notion, therefore, I am talking for now about TTT. The URI owner *presents* the non-information resource to the agents and humans (by making a description). The result is "presentation". That it is descriptive or confusing it is a property of TTT - what the URI owner provides is a *presentation*. So, I would say TTT is *presentation* *Presentation*, *presence* and *existence* - all three terms are from Ontology as a philosophic discipline: - Presence is existence correlated with time and space. Something is present in a place and for a period of time - in our case, the place is Web, and time is the period while the TTT is on the Web - Presentation is bringing something onto a place and a time by an agent (human agent or web agent) - in our case, this is the URI owner. Now, let us see what XXX is. What can we get back if not information, which is data+interpretation, which is (meta-data, digits) which is "representation"!? I agree with Frank Manola that this is "representation". So, it looks to me, that what the URI owner provides is *presentation* and what "we get" is *re-presentation*. Ioachim www.semanticsoft.net Chris Bizer wrote: > > Hi Frank, Pat and Bernard, > > thanks a lot for all your ideas and comments. > > So what we are having on the table right now is a definition: > > "The term XXX refers to the description of a non-information resource > that a client obtains by dereferencing a specific URI that identifies > this non-information resource." > > and various proposals for the term: > > Pat Hayes: > - represented description > - redirected description > - redescription > - transmit > - infon > > Frank Manola > - associated representation > > Bernard Vatant: > - description > > Some (of course subjective) comments: Like Bernard already stated, > "redescription" sounds temporal. You describe something, then you > redescribe it afterwards. Transmit and infon sound like Sci-Fi to me. > Redirected description is a good explanation of what is happening, but > maybe a bit to technical, process-oriented. > I think Frank's term "representation" does not work from the technical > side, as you get redirected to an information resource, which has a > representation and this representation contains the data we are > talking about. But the representation of this information resource > might also contain lots of data about other resources. For instance, > when you think about a vocabulary definition as in the "Best Practices > for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" guide > http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/. I like Frank's idea of using the > word "associated" as this term in also used throughout the TAG > "Dereferencing HTTP URIs" document > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14. > > So, when I try to merge all these ideas and thoughts, I end up with > "associated description". > > What do you think about this term? > Anybody strongly disagreeing? > > A problem that remains with this term is that it is rather technical > and therefore does not work well as a replacement for data item in the > introduction of our tutorial. > > For instance: The sentence "A basic tenet of Linked Data is to use RDF > links to interlink data items from different data sources." would > become "A basic tenet of Linked Data is to use RDF links to interlink > associated descriptions from different data sources." Cough, cough :-) > > But anyhow, the term "associated description" will work in the > remaining technical chapters of the tutorial and we can save ourselves > in the introduction by saying "A basic tenet of Linked Data is to use > RDF links to interlink data from different data sources". > > Cheers > > Chris > > > -- > Chris Bizer > Freie Universität Berlin > Phone: +49 30 838 54057 > Mail: chris@bizer.de > Web: www.bizer.de > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org> > To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> > Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>; <www-tag@w3.org>; > <semantic-web@w3.org>; "Linking Open Data" > <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:44 PM > Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and > Linked Data > > > > Chris-- > > This probably indicates that I haven't gone back far enough in the > prior discussion (or still don't understand various details of the > Web architecture), but what's wrong with "representation"? That is, > you're asking for "a term for "the information which you get about > the thing identified by it when you look up a URI". I thought what > you got back when you dereferenced a URI was a "representation". And > I thought that the difference between dereferencing the URI of an > information resource vs. that of a non-information resource is that: > > (a) for a non-information resource there's supposed to be some > indirection messaging that goes on between the original dereferencing > and you getting a representation back, and > > (b) the representation you get back doesn't contain all the > "essential characteristics" of the identified resource. > > But you still get a representation back. That is in fact what your > tutorial says. Under the heading "Dereferencing HTTP URIs", the last > sentence of the bullet that describes what happens for non- > information resources says "In a second step, the client dereferences > this new URI and *gets a representation* describing the original non- > information resource" [my emphasis]. > > I think I understand the sort of distinction you're getting at, > something like, as Pat suggests, the difference between getting a > copy (of sorts) of the thing itself vs. getting a "description" (in > some sense) of it, but if that's it, I'm not sure an entirely new > piece of terminology is what's needed. Operationally the only way we > have of knowing whether a URI names an information resource or a non- > information resource is (at least in the tutorial) whether > redirection happens when we dereference it. In the scenarios we're > talking about, the redirection is (as I understand it) ultimately to > the URI of an *information resource* (with its own URI) that > describes (in some sense) the original non-information resource. The > draft TAG finding a http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ > httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14 refers to this redirected-to > information resource as an "associated information resource" (without > necessarily intending to introduce that as a defined term). > Following those lines though, how about calling what you're after an > "associated representation"? That is, when you dereference the URI > of a non-information resource, what you get back (after redirection) > is an "associated representation" (the details of the association > being determined by the details of the redirection). > > -Frank > > On Jul 25, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Chris Bizer wrote: > >> Hi Frank, >> >>> I'd seriously suggest you look for some alternative to "data item" >>> for the concept in question. >> >> OK, but this leads to a question which I accutally wanted to try to >> avoid asking on this list. >> >> Hmm, I will do it anyway and see what happens ;-) >> >> Question 4: What term should we use instead? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> >> -- >> Chris Bizer >> Freie Universität Berlin >> Phone: +49 30 838 54057 >> Mail: chris@bizer.de >> Web: www.bizer.de >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org> >> To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> >> Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>; <www-tag@w3.org>; <semantic- >> web@w3.org>; "Linking Open Data" <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:07 PM >> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and >> Linked Data >> >> >>> Chris-- >>> >>> I appreciate that we run into terminology conflicts all the time >>> around here, but I'd seriously suggest you look for some alternative >>> to "data item" for the concept in question. An awful lot of people >>> (particularly those involved with databases) are used to seeing >>> "data item" refer to something like a property or attribute (like >>> "name" or "age"). More specifically, they're used to seeing >>> records as containing multiple data items (or their values). From >>> that point of view, the sentence "When you interpret the Web of >>> Data as a set of interlinked databases, a data item would equal a >>> record in a specific database." looks particularly strange. As I >>> say, I understand the inevitability of terminology conflicts, but ...? >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> --Frank >>> >>> On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Chris Bizer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>>>> I can't think of a term for "the information which you get about >>>>> the thing identified by it when you look up a URI" which works >>>>> for me. >>>> >>>>> It has of course the term "Representation" which connects an >>>>> Information Resource and the (metadata, bits) pair which you get >>>>> back, which is different. >>>> >>>> As we did not want to repeat the definition all over the tutorial, >>>> we ended up with a term called "data item". >>>> >>>> Within section 2.1 of the tutorial, we define the term as: "The >>>> term data items refers to the description of a non-information >>>> resource that a client obtains by dereferencing a specific URI that >>>> identifies this non-information resource." (http:// >>>> sites.wiwiss.fu- berlin.de/suhl/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/ >>>> #aliases) >>>> >>>> Note that the definition is a bit more specific than your sentence >>>> above, as it is restricted to non-information resources and not >>>> things in general (assuming that your term "thing" refers to non- >>>> information resources as well as information resources). >>>> >>>> We were also struggling to find a good word that matches the >>>> concept and have chosen "data item" in the end as it somehow >>>> relates to the overall term "Linked Data" and as we hope that >>>> people from the database community will understand the second >>>> informal definition of the term: "When you interpret the Web of >>>> Data as a set of interlinked databases, a data item would equal a >>>> record in a specific database." >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >> > > >
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2007 07:31:04 UTC