- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:22:29 +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: > Hello Xiaoshu, > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu] >> Sent: 10 April 2008 19:07 >> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) >> Cc: Jonathan Rees; Michael K. Bergman; www-tag@w3.org WG; Phil Archer >> Subject: Re: Uniform access to descriptions >> >> 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, >> > > Move *what* to HTTP... I didn't mention HTTP. > I am opposing HTTP LINK not any internal link such as HTML <link>. So, HTTP is necessary for my argument. >> 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. >> > > Don't understand what you mean by "(LINK)" and "should not stand". > I mean the semantics of *resource* HTTP-LINK *resource* should be modeled in RDF or in natural language. If we don't want to drop RDF or natural language, *resource* HTTP-LINK *resource* should not be granted, (by the principle of orthogonal specification), is this right? > >> Then *representation* - describes (LINK) - *resource*. This >> is the next model we agreed upon. >> > > No... we don't agree. I can only make guesses at what you are trying to say. > > >> 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 >>> > > opps s/give/given above > O.K. can I make this model as *representation* - describes (LINK) - *resource*? My question to Jonathan is that *description* must be falling into the argument of /representation/. I didn't assume /representation/ is a given, but using /description/ to replace /representation/ doesn't avoid to answer the relationship between /representation(description)/ to /resource/. It is the same problem, nothing new. Xiaoshu
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 19:24:27 UTC