- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:20:48 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, ashok > malhotra<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eran: >> Trying to understand your proposal. >> By 'abstract' do you mean URIs for which a representation cannot be >> retrieved? >> So, perhaps, a chair? >> My assumption was that for such resources you want to retrieve the metadata. >> > > Quibble: In the case of a chair, you can't get metadata, since a chair > isn't data. > http://www.google.com/search?q=define:metadata > Then, what is data? This is not intended for a child-play. It is a method of philosophical or scientific inquiry. For instance, most of the physics theory is, in fact, driven by a seemingly ridiculous question: what is motion? And more profoundly, what is space and time. > This is why it's nice that Eran calls the description resource a > "description resource" instead of a "metadata resource". This is again a psychological trick that does not solve any real word problem because then: what is "description resource"? Find something that is non-descriptive? "X" does not say anything about "Y" makes "X" a descriptive resource of "Y", doesn't it? Then, the fallacy of the definition is obvious. What word we use is in fact inconsequential, whatever it is, it is just merely a label for the conceptualization, which desires an unambiguous definition. It is the same for the ambiguous concepts, such as "information" and "metadata" etc. If you cannot find a definition that can tell metadata from non-metadata, you are not giving out a definition. Which is then useless in practice. I can assure you if you go on this direction, whatever resolution it comes out will be another httpRange-14. > LRDD is a > compatible alternative to linked-data 303 nose-following, one that > (like 303, as David Booth has pointed out) behaves uniformly without > caring whether the resource is "data"-like or not - it means you don't > have to ask or answer that question. I advocate using his terminology. > > Perhaps an alternative to a new URI scheme for hosts would be loop > detection inside of LRDD? I think that's close to what you're saying. > > -Jonathan > >
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 02:22:37 UTC