RE: How to name what you get back? was: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and Linked Data

Sandro,

You should read it well: Chris speaks about "the description.......that
identifies....". That is not necessarily a name. I can give you the
description:
1) is a guy
2) sits at the bar
3) wears a hat
etc
and that identifies a person of which I do not know the name. We call that
descriptive identification.

As I said, many things don't even have a name. And besides that, some Mr
Shakespeare once said "what's in a name? That which we call a rose by any
other name would smell as sweet."

Regards,
Hans 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 22:41
To: Hans Teijgeler
Cc: 'Sandro Hawke'; 'Chris Bizer'; 'Frank Manola'; 'Tim Berners-Lee';
www-tag@w3.org; semantic-web@w3.org; 'Linking Open Data'
Subject: RE: How to name what you get back? was: Terminology Question
concerning Web Architecture and Linked Data


"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
>  
> 

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 20:56:24 UTC