Re: The meaning of "representation"

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> a) The definition in AWW resources "all of their essential 
> characteristics can be conveyed in a message" does not speak to where 
> you are coming from. You take "essential characteristics" as meaning 
> "Properties' rather than " content".  So, not having understood that, 
> you are happy to consider Pat to be one.  That I think is a problem 
> with that definition.  However, remember natural language is an 
> imprecise  tool for making these definitions, and efforts is needed on 
> the part of reader as well as writer. An Information Resource is 
> information.  Pat is not.
I am not, and also won't present to be, a linguist.  But if we were to 
replace "properties" with "content"? Will that invalid my argument and 
strength yours?  Or, will it help me or others to get an objective 
definition of "information resource"? 

I am not, and also won't present to be, a philosopher. But, what is an 
"information"?
IMHO, Information is never a static or physical thing.  Information is 
acquired through a process but not presented as being is. This is the 
hardest part, ant it took me quite a while to get it, during the design 
the core DFDF ontology (I explained it somewhat in DFDF primer).  For 
me, Pat is a person.  Only through interacting with him or his web proxy 
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes do I get some information about 
Pat.  The same is http://www.w3.org.  If I don't interact with 
http://www.w3.org, it might just as well be Pat.
 
> - You try to make an architecture in which Pat Hay's famous page is 
> true. IMO his page is false, and misleading. 
This is what prompted me to write things up.   As you said, "natural 
language is an imprecise  tool".  So, can we be clear what do you mean 
"Pat Hay's famous page is false".  Do you mean?
(1) http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes is false?
(2) the representation of http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes is false?

I really want to understand on which ground they can be false.  We 
cannot say (1) is wrong, right? because Pat is the innocent party, who 
are dragged into this debate by me.  But how can (2) be wrong too?  As 
you said latter, a representation is a set of bit, and the identity is 
the content.  And the representation of that URI did talk about Pat, 
doesn't it?
> - You say a Representation is different from the "content of the 
> representation". However, as the representation is a set of bits, its 
> identity is is contents, IMO.
See above.
>
> -  If I understand correctly, I think you use content-negotiation for 
> distinguishing between the binary data DFDF things and the RDF 
> metadata DFDF things, which are completely different.  One is not  
> substitute  for the other.  Content negotiation is inappropriate.   
> This may be a source of great confusion.
>
> - You at one point propose, to counter the need for IR as a 
> first-class object,  double sets of vocabulary, one set for talking 
> about the document and one its subject.  This has been suggested in 
> the past mid-argument, I forget where exactly.   I find that approach 
> unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.
With regard to the web, there are creators for resource and there are 
creators for web pages.  No matter what, we need to create an additional 
URI.  303 tries to create a different URI to separate resource from 
page. A new vocabulary tries to separate the semantics of similar 
wording. IMHO, the latter is a better engineer design because the same 
vocabulary can be reused to describe a great many resources but the 
former must create a URI for a resource and redirect. 
>   - You can't use arbitrary predicates, without having some mechanism 
> for generating them.
I am a bit lost here.  If dublin core add a dc:repCreator to their 
vocabulary, will it be arbitrary?

> I will see whether I have time to transcribe my margin notes on your 
> document,  I am not sure when.   Perhaps I should write something 
> explaining what an Information Resource is better. I have tried 
> before.   I am not sure when I will get around to it.
Can't wait.

Xiaoshu

Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 13:48:28 UTC