- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:06:34 +0100
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Michael K. Bergman" <mike@mkbergman.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote: > Xiaoshu, > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of Xiaoshu Wang >> Sent: 10 April 2008 17:13 >> To: Jonathan Rees >> Cc: Michael K. Bergman; www-tag@w3.org WG; Phil Archer >> Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions >> >> Jonathan Rees wrote: >> > > <snip/> > > >> Jonathan, >> >> I don't want to be annoying. But please make a clear and objective >> definition of *description* for UA2D. >> >> Honestly, I don't think how you can separate UA2D from httpRange-14 >> because you can only define *description* w.r.t. IR or non-IR. >> >> I bet if you think hard enough, you will find that *description* is the >> same thing as *representation*. Inventing a synonymy won't solve any >> problem. >> >> Xiaoshu >> > > [In what follows "s/awww:resource/thing" if you prefer] > > With apologies for all the 'awww:...'ing, but Pat did ask that we speak very carefully. > > That one 'awww:resource' describes another 'awww:resource' (possibly amongst other 'awww:resource') is a relation between 'awww:resources' and other 'awww:resources' which describe them. > Yes, this is what we modeled in RDF (or described in human language). Why do we want to move it into HTTP, unless we want to drop RDF or human language? I guess the answer to this question is obvious no. Let me model it in such so it is much clear: *resource* - (LINK) - *resource* should not stand. Then *representation* - describes (LINK) - *resource*. This is the next model we agreed upon. Now, try to find a place for *description*? > A given 'awww:resource' may have one or more 'awww:representations' (ephemeral messages which convey some view of current 'content' of the given 'awww:resource'). Those 'awww:representations' are *not* the give 'awww:resource' they are 'of' it, but they are not 'it'. I think that we, you an I have agreed on that many times already. > > 'awww:resources' that described also have 'awww:representations', but those are 'awww:representations' of the description (an 'awww:resource' that describes) and *not* 'awww:representations' of the described 'awww:resource'. > > Phew... > > So... Synonymy? No! > > Thanks, > > Stuart > -- > Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN > Registered No: 690597 England > > >
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 18:07:28 UTC