RE: Revised draft of CBD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext John Black [mailto:JohnBlack@deltek.com]
> Sent: 18 October, 2004 17:41
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); otto@math.fu-berlin.de
> Cc: eric@w3.org; pfps@research.bell-labs.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revised draft of CBD
> 
> 
> > From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:14 AM
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ext John Black [mailto:JohnBlack@deltek.com]
> > > Sent: 18 October, 2004 14:50
> > > To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); 
> otto@math.fu-berlin.de
> > > Cc: eric@w3.org; pfps@research.bell-labs.com; 
> > www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Revised draft of CBD
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> > > > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:13 AM
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > How or where various commonly used forms of description could
> > > > be documented and presented as a whole is an open question.
> > > > 
> > > > I would love to see either the DA WG or the SW BP WG produce
> > > > a non-normative advisory document along those lines, but
> > > > something less formal, done as a collaboration of interested
> > > > parties, would be good too.
> > > 
> > > I am attempting to build a list of these forms on my Wiki
> > > http://kashori.com/wikiPim/BoundedDescriptions
> > > I have added pointers to all the recent species mentioned recently
> > > but have not yet had time to add all the pages.
> > > 
> > > The selection criteria is something like this: 
> > > 
> > > What is the smallest, most valuable, denotative content that 
> > > could be returned by WWW processes in response to a URI that is 
> > > also used as a vocabulary term in Semantic Web activities.
> > 
> > It need not be limited to vocabulary terms (unless that is 
> > specifically
> > your focus) but rather, about any arbitrary resource, for any
> > otherwise unrecognized URI.
> > 
> 
> Hmm. I didn't intend it to be limited in that way. I did mean 
> arbitrary resource. I'm trying to say that in the context of  
> semantic web statements, URIs are vocabulary terms used to denote 
> arbitrary resources. 
> 
> So how about this:
> What is the minimum, denotative content that can be returned by 
> a WWW processes in response to a URI that is also used as a name in 
> some semantic web statement to denote an arbitrary resource.
> 
> Also, there is a redundancy in the phrase "most valuable, 
> denotative". Denotative *is* the value. However "denotative"
> is needed or else the minimum could be none. In fact, for the 
> same reason, I think it is also needed in the name. How about 
> "Bounded Denotative Descriptions"? Except that I have included 
> some representations, such as Web Proper Names. Since descriptions 
> are a type (textual) of representations, the best may be "Bounded 
> Denotative Representations".

Sounds reasonable.

Though it may still be a bit vague being open to any form of
representation.

It may be more useful to ask, what form of subgraph of a graph
of RDF statements might constitute an optimal body of information
about a resource, given a particular URI denoting that resource;
or some such. Basing the question on an RDF graph helps answers
to be directly useful by semantic web applications.

A JPEG image may be considered an optimal form of representation
for certain classes of resources, but it's unlikely to be of much
ues to a semantic web agent (and I understand the goal of your
survey to identify forms of descriptions useful to semantic web
agents).

Cheers,

Patrick


> John
> 
> > Patrick
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > John Black
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > 
> > > > Patrick
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 06:09:21 UTC