W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Yorick Wilks on Semantic Web & httpRange-14

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 23:43:05 +0200
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20104091-B2D6-49BB-B38A-4B5C4D11B221@bblfish.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

On 17 May 2012, at 23:27, Larry Masinter wrote:

>> 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.

You are not using URIs but strings, so you can't understand what is going on.

Here, instead try finding out what the meaning of http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me 
is. I would suggest writing out a foaf profile and you'll soon enough see how it
works. You can add me as foaf:knows . If you don't know what foaf:knows means, then
just dereference it. It's full url is http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows

That it works is as clear as day to anyone using the linked data version of the semantic
web. But like all technical objects they have to be used to see how they work. 

> 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.

Social Web Architect
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 21:43:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:28 UTC