- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:41:00 -0400
- To: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- Cc: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Chris Bizer'" <chris@bizer.de>, "'Frank Manola'" <fmanola@acm.org>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, "'Linking Open Data'" <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
"Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> writes: > The name is just one of a multitude of aspects, and besides that there are > many things without a name (just an ID). Chris started this by asking: "The term XXX refers to the description of a non-information resource that a client obtains by dereferencing a specific URI that identifies this non-information resource." That "specific URI that identifies this non-information resource" -- that's "a name", isn't it? That's what I understand a name to be. -- Sandro > -----Original Message----- > From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Sandro Hawke > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 20:17 > To: Chris Bizer > Cc: Frank Manola; Tim Berners-Lee; www-tag@w3.org; semantic-web@w3.org; > Linking Open Data > Subject: How to name what you get back? was: Terminology Question concerning > Web Architecture and Linked Data > > > > "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> writes: > > > > Hi Frank, Pat and Bernard, > > > > thanks a lot for all your ideas and comments. > > > > So what we are having on the table right now is a definition: > > > > "The term XXX refers to the description of a non-information resource > > that a client obtains by dereferencing a specific URI that identifies > > this non-information resource." > > > > and various proposals for the term: > > > > Pat Hayes: > > - represented description > > - redirected description > > - redescription > > - transmit > > - infon > > > > Frank Manola > > - associated representation > > > > Bernard Vatant: > > - description > > > > Some (of course subjective) comments: Like Bernard already stated, > > "redescription" sounds temporal. You describe something, then you > > redescribe it afterwards. Transmit and infon sound like Sci-Fi to me. > > Redirected description is a good explanation of what is happening, but > > maybe a bit to technical, process-oriented. > > I think Frank's term "representation" does not work from the technical > > side, as you get redirected to an information resource, which has a > > representation and this representation contains the data we are > > talking about. But the representation of this information resource > > might also contain lots of data about other resources. For instance, > > when you think about a vocabulary definition as in the "Best Practices > > for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" guide > > http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/. I like Frank's idea of using the > > word "associated" as this term in also used throughout the TAG > > "Dereferencing HTTP URIs" document > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange-14. > > > > So, when I try to merge all these ideas and thoughts, I end up with > > "associated description". > > > > What do you think about this term? > > Anybody strongly disagreeing? > > > > A problem that remains with this term is that it is rather technical > > and therefore does not work well as a replacement for data item in the > > introduction of our tutorial. > > > > For instance: The sentence "A basic tenet of Linked Data is to use RDF > > links to interlink data items from different data sources." would > > become "A basic tenet of Linked Data is to use RDF links to interlink > > associated descriptions from different data sources." Cough, cough :-) > > > > But anyhow, the term "associated description" will work in the > > remaining technical chapters of the tutorial and we can save ourselves > > in the introduction by saying "A basic tenet of Linked Data is to use > > RDF links to interlink data from different data sources". > > "Associated Description" is okay, but it's rather too broad, I think. > Clearly things have other kinds of associate descriptions than this kind. > > Because you're talking about relating the thing-itself to some > information-content, I think it's important to bring in some reference > to naming. Yes, the content is associated with the thing, but it's > much more associated with the thing's name. > > example: > I have no idea what name-content is out there about me. I > publish some stuff via my primary work URI for myself, but who > knows what is published at other URIs? Maybe I should have a > personal-life URI for myself, and set up some other name-content > there? > > example: > I gathered all the name-content I could find about Tim. There > were seven URIs, but four of them didn't return RDF. Actually, > some of his name-content is pretty good. > > Your example: > A basic tenet of Linked Data is to use RDF links to interlink > name-content from different data sources. > > Some more writing: > The key idea of Linked Data is that things mentioned in data > should be given web-style names (URIs), and dereferencing those > URIs should give back more data about the named thing. The > content you get back from dereferencing a particular name is > sometimes called the "name-content". This material is published > by the people who own the URI used as a name, and they have > insentive (and some would say a responsibility) to publish useful > and accurate information. If they fail to do so, people will tend > to use other names for the things in their own published content, > so that their users get better name-content when they want it. > > It's still not perfect -- it's not really self-explanitory -- but I think > it's better than the other terms I've seen suggested here. (Some longer, > more self-explanitory terms: "Name-Owner's Published Information", > "Name-Owner's Associated Page", "Name's Authoritative Information", etc...) > > -- Sandro > > [1] http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/data#SandroHawke > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.20/919 - Release Date: 26-Jul-07 > 9:56 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.20/919 - Release Date: 26-Jul-07 > 9:56 > >
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 20:42:25 UTC