Re: Issue-57

On 6/24/11 2:53 PM, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org> wrote:
>>
>> If http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Fire is used as it is:
>>
>> wiki:Pale_Fire a ex:WebPage.
>> wiki:Pale_Fire ex:licence ex:l1.
>> wiki:Pale_Fire ex:topic <aURI> .
>> <aURI> a ex:Book.
>> <aURI> ex:licence ex:l2.
>
>You have not documented ex:WebPage, so I haven't a clue what you mean by
>it.

Define it like, whatever the things you see or rendered on your screen.

>
>How does the receiver make the connection with the representations
>retrieved via 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Fire' ?  That is, how
>do I know that this URI is supposed to refer to that wiki page, as
>opposed to some other wiki page, say the one accessed at
>'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleak_House' , or Pale Fire itself? (And
>consequently what the topic is?)

Go try the URI and see what the author says. If he didn't, use it whatever
way you want. If the author is not careful of making such statement, it is
his careless. If the author says one way, and you insist the other way,
then it is your ignorance or arrogance.

>
>If you have retracted amended httpRange-14, then there is *no*
>connection between the URI in its use as a name and retrieved
>representations. It appears you have replaced httpRange-14 with some
>other rule. What convention do the sender and receiver need to agree
>on in order for the message to get across?

It is not the job of TAG to say how a people uses a particular URI. It is
just it is not anyone's job to say how a English word is used. Dictionary
publishers does not define a word usage. It only documents how a word is
used. The usage is defined by a community.

Xiaoshu

Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 19:00:49 UTC