- 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