- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:24:11 +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 Xiaoshou, <snip/> > >>> > >>> > >> 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. > > > I am opposing unnecessarily put an HTTP-LINK header because I couldn't > imagine a use case for HTTP LINK, which cannot be solved with putting > link in content, i.e., using RDF or human language, or using Conneg. In > other words, I think the functionality of the potential HTTP LINK would > be redundant to some other part of functionalities of the web, which > eventually will make the web difficult to operate on. Because you don't see the utility is no reason to stand in the way of a queue of people that do. In terms of use cases: how would you address use cases from Jonathan for content formats that don't have a means to carry links or inline metadata: the simplest being plain-text resources; zipped resources; extending through signed resources (changing their content will disturb signatures); and just the mass of legacy stuff out there that approximately no-one is going to update to fit in with your world view. <snip/> > >> 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 > > > I was trying to say "description"+variants, should be described in RDF > or in natural languages. Isn't description the content of another > resource in this sense? So, if description is neither "resource" nor > "representation"? What can it be? Are we agreed that Jonathan is *not* "inventing a synonymy"? Please... that is the point/claim I was addressing. I have no idea whether we have agreed on it or not. To answer your other question here: "What can it[description] be?". I gave my answer that way before, with all the "awww:"'ing and you agreed: It is a relation between (in this context) "awww:resource" where on resource is descriptive of another. And... I am now going to try very hard not to respond with answers that merely repeat something that has already been said... > Xiaoshu Thank you, Stuart -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 13:28:13 UTC