RE: Yorick Wilks on Semantic Web & httpRange-14

> I think there is a place, as the A, B, C use case in your last message
> illustrates.  The other channel of information is the URI definition
> provided by the URI owner.  That convention provides an efficient,
> scalable way for parties A, B and C who know nothing about each other to
> easily agree on a common definition if they choose to do so.  This is a
> useful benefit, even if it does not go so far as to ensure that they are
> all giving the same meaning to that URI.

How does that work? What convention? So you add "D" as the
"owner" of the URI "slithy toves".   And D wants to tell the world
"when you say 'slithy toves', it means something like a slimy toad but scarier"
as D's definition.

What is the "efficient, scalable" way in which A, B and C communicate
in order to all agree to use D's definition? How is their agreement
"easy" ? I mean, if they could agree to use D's definition, why can't
they agree to use A's definition instead? Or B's? 

Are there cases where D has to stay current in the conversation,
and trusted to maintain the "definitions" that D originally might
have made available?

>> If A says "slithy toves" to C and B uses the same term, and C wants
>> further clarification of what A or B might have meant, the only
>> authorities to ask are A and B. 

> I agree.  That use case is way beyond what a convention like the Uri
> Definition Discovery Protocol (UDDP)
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol 
> attempts to address.

I'm astounded, I gave what I thought was the simplest use case
of communication using the semantic web. You have to have
two senders and one receiver for there to be any ambiguity.

I don't see any use cases at all in 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriDefinitionDiscoveryProtocol

so it's hard for me to understand what problem you think you are solving with it.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 21:27:41 UTC