- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:11:16 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: "Michael K. Bergman" <mike@mkbergman.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >> >> 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. > > "What is a description" is a good question. I will interpret it to > mean "what did JAR mean by 'description'". I didn't get it. :-( > The wiki page [1] does not define the term, but it does say > "Descriptions might include information about the thing such as > bibliographic metadata, factual information, reviews or assessments, > related materials, access control or licensing information, etc.". This is really what gives me the problem, I don't know why these information should (or need to) be modeled in HTTP LINK. Jonathan, please don't take my insistence on a definition for *description* in a bad way. I really have a hard time to picture what *description* is. We already have an ambiguous concept of IR that has caused so much problem and we still didn't settle on the relationship between /representation/, /resource/, URI, and HTTP. And if a new concept, such as /description/ comes out, I cannot imagine how much more messy the situiation will be. That is the reason why I want Phil and you to postpone the LINK solution because only do we know how TAG settles on the relationship between the above mentioned entities can we know what is not defined and then fit in its structure accordingly. Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 16:12:00 UTC