- From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:36:32 +0000
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 6/23/11 10:16 PM, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: >On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org> wrote: >> >> The original purpose of httpRange-14, I guess, is to avoid ambiguity. >>But >> ambiguity can only be cleared with more ontological assertions. >> httpRange-14 has raised more confusion/debate. Except transferring >> ambiguity to a different term, what problem it has solved? > >I can see you're getting hung up on unimportant points, so let me try >again. > >Let's make sure we're talking about the actual problem to be solved, >since it's easy to lose track in all the irrelevant ontological >hand-wringing. This is not a philosophical or ontological problem; >it's pure engineering. > >Suppose the following holds: > > <http://example/z> xhv:license <http://example/l1>. > >Suppose that I do a GET of 'http://example/z' and retrieve a >"representation" R. > >My interlocutor wants me to be able to infer that > > R xhv:license <http://example/l1>. First, let me make this clear. I have never denied the problem you described here is not a problem. My argument has always been httpRange-14 is a wrong solution to the problem. This is a significant jump. You are suggesting that an HTTP-URI references to a "Representation". I believe this is not what the current AWWW says. I believe this is, perhaps intensionally avoided, in the AWWW. In your case, HTTP-URI will be just like a file-URI. But HTTP protocol is totally different. When you take content negotiation into play, which version of R that you are suggesting? If <http://example/z> can get back a JPEG image, which is licensed by <http://example/l1>, will the same license apply to an RDF representation of it? Thus, you will need more than specifying 200 to do that. > >so that my remix tool knows what license terms apply when using the bits >in R. > >Anyone who likes web architecture (Tim's and the 2005 TAG's, not Roy's >or yours) would say that this inference is exactly what the >httpRange-14 resolution is meant for. If web architecture can be >assumed, then the inference is valid. > >Anyone who doesn't, and rejects the resolution, says the inference is >not valid, so this won't work. If you cast about for an interpretation >of 'http://example/z' there might be more than one - the intended one >is an option, but if R *describes* some entity E satisfying > > E xhv:license <http://example/l2>. > >where the license terms in l2 are quite different from those in l1, >then absent httpRange-14 E would also be a plausible interpretation of >'http://example/z' (consider the relation of _Bleak House_ the novel >to the page at 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleak_House' - these are >licensed quite differently). And there might be others. I don't know why this is a problem? R xhv:license <http://example/l1>. E xhv:license <http://example/l2>. So? I don't understand. What if 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleak_House' 200 returns a web page containing the following phrase: This URI -- 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleak_House' -- refers to the book "Bleak House" and it is licensed under <http://example/l1>. The web page, I.e., what you retrieved from the URI "'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleak_House' is licensed under <http://example/l2>. In the case when someone tell you: 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleak_House' license <http://example/l1> In the case of a license violation, I guess TAG would side with the offender and put the web developer in jail. But I believe most judge, if not all, would side with the developer. > >That's the ambiguity that is being addressed - what is related by >xhv:license to l1, the representations coming from GET of >'http://example/z', or something else (E). It has nothing to do with >ontology. > >So if you (or the agent you're talking to) don't agree to the >architecture, the statement about <http://example/z> is not an >effective way to communicate information about the representations R, >and you have to coordinate some other way to say it. If you start >looking for a different way to express this meaning, then I have >proven my point that the architecture is useful; you are just on the >road to showing it's unnecessary or undesirable, which is a different >question. > >And if you are saying that the resolution is impractical and will >never get adequate uptake, then I have also proved my point, since >that would say that, if counterfactually agreed on, it would have some >value to someone. > >Of course the httpRange-14 resolution as stated doesn't allow the >desired inference, since the rule doesn't tell you *which* information >resource is "identified", but that is a bug that I think we all now >recognize. What was really meant was that the URI "identifies" a >*particular* resource, namely the one whose associated >"representations" are retrieved (i.e. are 2xx responses) from that URI >- and I think this is pretty obvious, so obvious that no one thought >to say it at the time. > >In order to do the inference above there is absolutely no need to do >ontology around "information resources". It really doesn't matter what >they are, and we may not even need the term at all - I didn't need it >in the above exposition. It's unfortunate that the foolish >"information resource" meme has tripped up so many of us (I know, I >was stuck on it too for a long time). Can httpRange-14 solves the above problems, I.e., multiple representations and information authority? I doubt it. It is too limited an approach trying to solve a problem of a much larger scope and of entirely an different nature. Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 03:37:03 UTC