- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:38:09 +0000
- To: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- 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>
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