On May 27, 2004, at 11:02, Pat Hayes wrote:

[..]

<excerpt>BTW, the diagram cited below (Im looking at the one
at<fontfamily><param>Lucida Grande</param> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/URI-space.png</fontfamily>
) directly embodies that confusion/ambiguity very clearly. There are
two black arrows at the bottom, one going from 'hypertext' to
'anchor', the other going from 'semantic Web' to 'anything'. THESE TWO
RELATIONSHIPS ARE  NOT THE SAME KIND OF RELATIONSHIP. The first refers
to identification on a network, and belongs in my "C' category: the
second arrow is denotation, which has nothing to do with computation
and belongs entirely in the D category.

</excerpt>

Yes.  The first is hypertext architecture; the second is semantic web
architecture.  They are different.


A warning: read the diagram carefully: it is not a venn diagram of
resources, but of URIs.

Sets -- subset of URIs -- are labeled in roman text, or typewriter
text with syntactic constraints such as URI scheme.  Then, some
regions in the diagram are annotated in italic with some examples of
the things which can be *identified by* those URIs.   It is rather
squeezed.  "Anchor" should be in italics.


<excerpt> The first is supposed, by its very nature, be computable
(given the state of the network) and requires uniqueness of
identification: neither of these properties hold of the second. The
second can refer to anything: the first, by its very nature, cannot. 
The second must be understood relative to an interpretation: the first
cannot be that ambiguous but must be determined by the state of the
Web.  The entire force of my extended attempt to deconstruct the
confusion in the TAG architecture document can be summarized by the
observation that these two relationships, shown in this diagram by
identical (and parallel) arrows, are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. 

</excerpt>

Yes. 


Actually the arrows show in URI space the mapping from a set of URIs
without a hash to the set of URIs with hashes, specifically the
mapping in which corresponds to appending a hash and something.  The
syntactic relationship between the URIs is the same.  However, for
hypertext and the semantic web architecture, the 




<excerpt> Calling them both 'identification' is not a good strategy:
it is in fact little more than a pun. Applying criteria which make
perfect sense for one to the other produces nonsense and confusion.

</excerpt>

No one is calling the arrow "+#localiD" "Identification". 
Identification is the relation between the URIs mapped in the venn
diagram and things they are deemed to identify (as annotated from time
to time in italics).



[...discussion of denotation skipped ...]


<excerpt>Public discussion of http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ suggest
that this

 unconstrained definition of 'resource', along with a separate term
for a

 smaller set of "information resources" is a useful way to describe
the role

 of URIs in Web Architecture.


Well, it might be if the document was rewritten carefully paying
attention to this distinction, and not applying advice suitable to the
special case to the more general case. 

</excerpt>

Yes indeed.


<excerpt>However, the result would be that almost the entire document
would be about 'information resources'.

</excerpt>

The editor has instructions to do the edit so we can see what it looks
like.


<excerpt>(we haven't finished the text yet, but you can see a diagram
at

  http://www.w3.org/2004/05/URI-space-small.png

  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/URI-space.svg

and some notes on the discussion at

  http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html#httpRange-14-1 )



 The unconstrained definition of 'resource' is also what was imported
into

 the RDF specification:


Well, yes, but only because you told me that was obligatory, and in my
Webbish innocence I believed you :-)


 Pat



   The things denoted are called 'resources', following [RFC 2396], but

   no assumptions are made here about the nature of resources;
'resource'

   is treated here as synonymous with 'entity', i.e. as a generic term

   for anything in the universe of discourse.

     -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ aka

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/



 I think this captures the input I got from TimBL on the matter; could
you

 confirm, TimBL?

</excerpt>

Yes.


<excerpt>[...] 

</excerpt>

<excerpt>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/



<fixed>-- 

</fixed>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 IHMC       (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home

 40 South Alcaniz St.       (850)202 4416   office

 Pensacola                 (850)202 4440   fax

 FL 32501                     (850)291 0667    cell

 phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes


</excerpt>