- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 02:44:14 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
[Roy refers here to the problem that httpRange-14 causes in EARL:-] > That problem is simple to fix. It is natural to want to make statements > about resources and about representations of resources. [...] It is > solved for HTTP/1.1. Now we just need to find the corresponding > syntax for it in RDF. Let me explain how we currently model this (i.e. solved it) in EARL, which is a pretty generic RDF application, and could be reused elsewhere. Let's say that because the TAG has not yet come to a decision on this issue, the URI http://example.org/tool/ identifies either a tool, or some generic document that talks about that tool. (Digression: I know that you will simply state that it is nonsensical to restrict the publisher to only being able to identify timbl:Documents with HTTP URIs, and yet I also know full well that TimBL will argue the contrary. The argument by assertion on either side has not brought TAG to a resolution yet.) We have a proposed indirection property--called earl:documentation--where if the value of the property is a tool, then the subject is simply equivalent to the value, whereas if the value of the property is a web document, then the subject is a tool that is simply documented by the value. This is--AFAIK--compatible with both points of view, although it does mean introducing an unecessary extra triple into EARL applications in the event that the "HTTP URIs can identify anything" POV is upheld. What would be helpful to us is that, if this issue were to be resolved soon, we could either tighten the meaning of the earl:documentation property, or remove it altogether. This issue has gone around in circles for long enough that it's clearly become just a battle of wills. I think that the majority of consensus (from what I can tell on the www-tag list and others) is behind HTTP URIs being able to identify anything, but it's not a crushing majority. TimBL's latest DesignIssue [1]--though sloppily worded in many places (as Aaron was so quick to pounce upon)--does help to clarify his point of view, and gets us one step closer to that vital algorithm for determining what a timbl:Document is. If TimBL were to come up with a suitable formal defintion for his document class, that would perhaps enable the issue to progress a step forwards towards resolution (where "suitable" here means grounded in current specifications where appropriate, strict enough that it enables one to always tell for any given resource (where enough properties about it are known) whether it is a document or not, and rigid enough so that it leaves no room for speculation or false interpretation, especially in areas concerning IPR of documents, and so on). I have a feeling that the phrase "Anything vs. Document" is going to end up achieving more legendary status amongst hacker circles than "Kirk vs. Picard". [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 21:44:20 UTC