- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:22:47 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
DanC:
>> Hmm... I thought what distinguished information resources from
>> resources in general is that only information resources have
>> representations (in the webarch sense).
>
TimBray:
> I totally disagree. My examples include the RDF namespace and the
> FOAF thing, both of which have representations, and in fact there are
> systems that will take that urn:isbn: thing and give you something
> useful. I can't imagine anything in the universe for which you could
> decree "there can be no representations".
Of course you two disagree, you are using the two different meanings of
the term "represent".
This has been the cause of many kilobytes on this thread.
(To clarify my understanding of the above to anyone happy to read N3,
noting that the class "Representation" is quite different from the
relationship "representation", the latter meaning "has represnetation"
dan:representation a rdf:Property;
rdfs:domain dan:InformationResource;
rdfs:range tag:Representation.
bray:representation a rdf:Property;
rdfs:domain bray:Resource;
rdfs:range tag:Representation.
bray:resource = owl:Thing;
rdfs:comment "Everything abstract or concrete is one of these".
# More or less:
dan:InformationResource = cyc:ConceptraulWork =
sandro:MessageWithSomeMeaning.
{ ?x dan:representation ?r1.
?y bray:representation ?r1
} => {
?x a dan:InformationResource;
?x dc:subject ?y
}.
This shows how the diagram we had on the board looks the same from dan
and timbray's points of view. One can however complete it by adding
all the terms.
)
> An information resource is something that is primarily information.
> That's all (I think). -Tim
>
Can we remove "primarily"?
Tim BL
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 15:22:51 UTC