W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

RE: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:48:22 +0000
To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "jar@creativecommons.org" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C82CA860F11B@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Hello Xiaoshu,

<snip/>
> What makes me reverse my course? As I can now understand, the reason is 
> that when we are speaking at the higher level, there are only a few 
> words/concepts that we can use.  For the Web, there are only three 
> things that are clearly defined.  URI, awww:Representation, 
> Resource.  
> According to the SIR model that I have used to define all information 
> system,
> 
> URI is the *Symbol*
> awww:Representation the *Information*,
> Resource the *Referent*.
> 
> Resource, is thus, what exists in the Web.  Existence, according to 
> Quine's definition, is the value of a bounded variable.  It is things 
> that has meaning or significance.
> 
> Representation is Information, which, as defined by Dretske, is 
> objective.  And Information must have structure, which, w.r.t. to the 
> Web, it is the format of awww:Representation.

I really don't think you are very far way from where I, the TAG and probably most of the web community are - though we (you and I at least) seem make a lot 'noise' about the apparent disagreement.

What seems missing here is a discussion of how the "information" stands in relation to the "referent". AUI in webarchitecture the intention is that the 'information' conveys the current state of the 'referent'. With that constraint... if you provide 'information' that enables me to present an 'image' or a 'narrative' on a screen - it is that 'image' or that 'narrative' that is the referent as opposed to whatever thing or combination of things that are the subject matter of the depicted in the image or discussed in the narrative.

> Thus, when we talk about the Web, these are all the terminologies that 
> we have at our disposal.  Any other terminologies, such as IR, or Meta-, 
> Description etc. needs a concrete definition and could be used either a 
> small sub-system of the Web (hence making it unsuitable as a generic 
> design pattern for the Web) or someone needs to come up with a model 
> that making these concepts an essential component of the Web.
> 
> I wish this clearly outlined my position (so I won't be accused of 
> refusing to understand other's position).  Hopefully, it can also give 
> us a reasonable guideline for the subsequent debate if any.
> 
> Xiaoshu

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 13:49:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:35 UTC