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: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:23 -0400
Message-ID: <f6ec8dcb0709121745i1cb74e76sa8d28e7041312939@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

On 9/12/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> 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?
> >

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

Oh, I see your point.  Well, there are three classes of agents for
which that URI would be subject to some machine-processing:

1) XML processors (which interpret it at the syntactic level as a
signal - no model theory, no HTTP dereference)
2) Web agents (which dereference and interpret it as hypertext - and
possibly as a webarch:def-information-resource if they adhere to
httpRange-14)
3) "Intelligent agents - i.e., KR processors" (which wouldn't be able
to do much w/out additional assertions)

> nature? do you mean rdf:type? as in
>
>  <http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema> rdf:type webarch:InformationResource.

I mean type as in rdf:type, yes.

> 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.

This would be useful for intelligent agents, which are also capable of
XML processing (such as a GRDDL-aware agent)

> (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.

Both of these would be useful for web agents (esp. "RESTful" ones
which operated on behalf of a human)

> (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.

(4) is useful for philosophers :)

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

Agreed.

> 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?

Yes.  It doesn't cause any inconsistency for XML processors or web
agents (which don't adhere to ontological commitment), but for
intelligent agents that want to interpret or infer, it contributes
some inconsistency.  Of course, care can be taken -- while building
ontologies relevant for interpretation / inference -- to be consistent
with (3).

I have less issue with (4), because, according to some well-deployed
definitions [1] of "things which contain information", they can
plausibly span tangible and non-tangible things - but at the very
least those definitions are very expressive and certainly not binary.

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

No, I think (1) is a *very* useful reading for sophisticated intelligent agents

[1]http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2007-08-30/ontological-definitions-of-an-information-resource

-- Chimezie
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 00:45:48 UTC

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