RE: Uniform access to descriptions

Hello Xiashou,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
> Sent: 10 April 2008 20:22
> 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:
> > Hello Xiaoshu,
> >
> >

<snip/>

> >>> [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.

You are clearly opposed to something, but my comprehension of quite what that something is erodes with each exchange of messages :-(.

> >> unless we want to drop RDF or human
> >> language?  I guess the answer to this question is obvious no.

The question you ask "unless we want to drop RDF or human language?" seems incomplete. I have failed to make anything of it.

> >> 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?

I'm sorry, I'm not able to answer because I do not understand the question. I could make guesses about the question, but I think it would be wrong for me to do that.

> >> 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*?

The intended meaning of the notation you use escapes me. I can make guesses... but... GIGO [1].

[1] http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/GIGO.html

> 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.

Ok... so the bit that I can work with....

You posed that Jonathan was "inventing a synonymy" wrt  "description" (and variants: describes; descriptionOf...) and "representation" (and variants: represents; reprentationOf...) and that "Inventing a synonymy won't solve any problem."

Whilst I agree that "Inventing a synonymy won't solve any problem." I also argued in [2](coherently I thought) that "description"+variants and "representation"+variants are not being used synonmously ie. (at least IMO) Jonathan is not "inventing a synonymy".

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0100

> Xiaoshu

Regards

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 12:42:32 UTC