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

re: XML Schema draft populates the intersection of Language and InformationResource [ISSUE-14 httpRange-14]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:55:41 -0500
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1189630541.1829.522.camel@pav>

On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 16:27 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> Dan Connolly writes:
> 
> > $ HEAD http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema
> > 200 OK
> >
> > So the draft proposes that http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema
> > identifies both an information resource and a language.
> 
> > Is it just me, or does this seem like a map/territory bug, to others?
> 
> Not to me.  As I've been pointing out before, if assertions are
> expressed in a formal knowledge representation which properly
> distinguishes languages from "information resources" there is no
> problem.

But in this case, the very same URI is given to both an
information resource and a language, so they cannot be
distinguished.


> There is a *clear* (ontological) seperation between the document
> (information object/resource) and the language it is encoded in.  IMO,
> The bug here is with the mechanism used to conclude the nature of
> http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema not, the draft.

nature? do you mean rdf:type? as in

 <http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema> rdf:type webarch:InformationResource.

?

Consider 4 formulas, using terms from[IRW] :


(1) a formalization of what's in the XML Schema draft:

  <http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema> rdf:type :Language.

(2) a formalization of the 200 response:

  _:anHTTP200Response rdf:type http:OKResponse;
     http:about <http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema> .

and the corollary
(2b)
  <http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema> w:representation _:someRepresentation.

(3) a formalization of the TAG httpRange-14 decision:

  w:representation rdfs:domain w:InformationResource.

(4) an intuition of mine that languages and information resources are disjoint:

  w:InformationResource owl:disjointWith :Language.


A rational being can only believe at most 3 of those; all
4 together are inconsistent.

By "The bug here is with the mechanism used to conclude
the nature of http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema" I understand
you to take issue with (3). Do I have that right?

Or perhaps you think I'm going too far when I read (1) from the XML Schema
draft?


> > There are languages and there are documents that specify/describe
> > languages, but those classes don't intersect, do they?
> 
> In DOLCE (see [1] & [2]) they *may* (I couldn't determine this from a
> quick perusal) but at the very least, the semantics of what a document
> is and a language encoding is clearly articulated.
> 
> [1] http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/InformationObjects.owl
> [2] http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/ExtendedDnS.owl


[IRW] A Pragmatic Theory of Reference for the Web
Dan Connolly
IRW 20006
Edinburgh, Scotland
23 May 2006
  http://www.w3.org/2006/04/irw65/urisym

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 20:56:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:53 UTC