W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Subgroup to handle semantics of HTTP etc?

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:40 +0100
Message-ID: <471CDBAC.6040302@musc.edu>
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...

Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 17:20:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:18 UTC