- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:40 +0100
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, W3C-TAG Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Jonathan A Rees <jar@mumble.net>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: >> They may >> referred to as >> >> _:aPrintCopy awww:hardCopyOf <http://example.com/abook>. >> _:anAudio awww:soundOf <http://example.com/abook>. >> _:anHTMLRep awww:informationResourceOf <http://example.com/abook>. >> _:anPDFFile awww:informationResourceOf <http://example.com/abook>. >> ..... >> >> Please note that my last two assertions because I think it is >> more appropriate to define *information resource* as the set >> of all representations of all generic URIs. Such a view has >> few advantages. >> > > Sorry, but I am not getting this - there may be some words missing. > > Alt1: if "information resource" is the set of all representations > obtainable from all generic URIs (over all time? or at an instant?) how > are we to discriminate one information resource from another? > Using b-nodes? So we can refer the html representation of http://example.com/abook as _:abook a HtmlRepresentation; repOf <http://example.com/abook>. Just like in human language, we talk about it as the "html representation" of <http://example.com/abook>. Right? A representation is bound with its master URI, so we cannot talk about it without its master URI. >> 1) It is much easier to understand and consistent because it >> doesn't matter if a URI identifies a network resource, a >> person, or a namespace, or an ontology. >> > > I don't understand what comparison is being made here. Something is > 'easier' than something else... but I'm struggling to ground the > 'somethings'. > I snip the rest. I don't think we differ too much but only on probably this one question. Is there any distinguishable difference between a "document (awww:InformationResource)" and a person? Current, AWWW thinks so (from my understanding). I think not, which I just responded to Noah's question. Hence, I propose to use "information resource" for *representations* because it feels - at least to me - natural to think that in the web we work with "information resource" to understand things in the world. A "document" located somewhere in the network, therefore, is not an information resource. It is just an ordinary *thing* in the world, like a book, a person, etc... Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 17:20:13 UTC