W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Issue-57

From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:49:36 +0000
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA2BB523.11636%xiao@renci.org>
On 6/25/11 3:18 AM, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org> wrote:

>On 2011-06 -24, at 22:24, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>> From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
>> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:42:50 -0400
>> To: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
>> Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Alan Ruttenberg
>><alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jeni
>>Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Issue-57
>>> On 2011-06 -24, at 16:22, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>>>> From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
>>>> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:14:51 -0400
>>>> To: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Alan Ruttenberg
>>>><alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jeni
>>>>Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List"
>>>> Subject: Re: Issue-57
>>>>> On 2011-06 -24, at 15:00, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Go try the URI and see what the author says. If he didn't, use it
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> then it is your ignorance or arrogance.
>>>>> Suppose the URI is
>>>>> According to your proposal, what can I use it for in RDF?
>>>> First, the presumption is that we will have an assertion of the sort
>>>>like the follows?
>>> No, in my case there is no such presumption.
>>> There is just the web.
>>> That is a real URI.
>>> What can I use it for in RDDF, according to your proposal?
>>> You say "Go to the URI and see what the author says".
>>> What does that author say?
>> I think you can use the URI in anyway you want because from a logic
>>point of view, it contradict to the URI's owner's point of view.
>> I hold the same view as Larry's. That is: all semantic problem is a
>>communication problem. When I make a statement saying:
>> a ex:Person.
>> I am merely expressing my opinion. Upon receiving the document, it is
>>up to you to decide if it is consistent with your world so to accept or
>>reject it.  In fact, even if the author has asserted that,
>> a ex:Image. 
>> I can still be able to make the earlier statement. It does not imply
>>that I am *wrong* in an absolute sense, it simply suggests that I am
>>offering a model that is inconsistent with the author's (assuming there
>>is an accompanying assertion that Image and Person are disjoint).  But,
>>that is how our knowledge evolves over time. I don't see why TAG should
>>> Can I use that URI for statements about a picture?
>>> Can I use that URI for statements about Barak Obama?
>>> for example.
>> Yes, either way is fine.
>In that case, your proposed system is not the WWW, and not the Semantic
>It is a different imaginary system, which you are free to develop, but
>you should not use the term "HTTP".
>In the Semantic Web,  I can say
>	<ex:i>   <fb:like>
>and it unambiguously means that I like the image, not the person.
>This is very valuable.

Say, there are two URIs.
(a) http://example1.com/obama-barack
(b) http://example2.com/obama-barack

Both of them redirect to
, one by 302 and one by 303.

<ex:i> <fb:like> http://example1.com/obama-barack.
<ex:i> <fb:like> http://example2.com/obama-barack.

Is it still unambiguously to you. How many others do you think will
consider it unambiguous?

The unambiguity that you placed here only works within the context of
"intuition" or "common sense". Just like Ian has later questioned, but
what is <ex:i>, what is <fb:like>? Is <ex:i> a person or a web page or
some other things? Is the <fb:like> the same as your <ogp:like>. And
should the receiver of that statement to check if the object-URI is a
>Jonathan can say
>	<http://www.knox.edu/Images/_News/news_media/img/2005/obama-barack-1ss.jp
>g> cc:licence ex:lic1.
>and then those who know that can copy and paste the image with impunity,
>and their automated editors can help them do it.  That is very valuable.

Does one more assertion added to the existing one make it less valuable,
make the license invalid? Make the statement less "Semantic Web", make
 less HTTP? 

 an ex:image.
 cc:licence ex:lic1.

>We can define a "parallel property"
>	<ex:i>   <ogp:like>
>which implies statements about the subject of the picture,but that is
>done in the definition of ogp:like, not
>in the way the URI's referent is defined.

What does it mean: if someone say:

<ex:i> <ogp:like> <a-Non-IR>.

And this <a-Non-IR> 303ed to another page. Does it mean that "I like

In fact, this <ogp:like> approach is no different from what I have been
saying all alone. That is: we need more ontological terms to express
ourself clearly. The difference is that you want to build your intuition
into the Web while I opted none.

>The semantic web is a very useful system in which people can
>publish information about different things.  That information can be
>gathered and aggregated, and useful
>deductions can be made from it.
>The TAG made that decision because that its its job: to define how the
>parts of
>the spec fit together so that the whole system works.  It was asked to
>resolve that issue.
>Interoperability for the web and for the semantic web is key.
>Everyone has to agree on the basic way it works, so they can build
>interoperable programs.
>Sometimes, almost always, the designs we agree on are not the ones we
>would have designed
>ourselves.  But we gracefully accept that  we will work wit the standards
>because we value
>the incredible power of interoperability.

It sounds like what I am trying is to make the Web less interoperable.
httpRange-14 is not essential to any of those you are suggesting. With or
without httpRange-14, we need to reach the same amount of semantic clarity
to achieve those goals. The debate is if we need to put a little bit piece
in the transportation layer. The Web has been working on without
httpRange-14 for 20 years.

>My software would assume that
>was a document before doing any HTTP request, just as it assumes that
><mailto:timbl@w3.org> is a mailbox
>before sending any mail.
>However, others wanted to be able to use http: URIs like that for
>arbitrary things.
>The TAG defined a compromise, so that you can only assume that it is a
>document if you get back 200.
>I changed my code.  I would have preferred otherwise, but I went along
>with the compromise
>in order to get consensus and get interoperability.
>Then, the community invented the 303 response, and I think soon we should
>invent a 209 response
>as 303 is in general  too inefficient in some sorts of system.
>You clearly have that urge to be creative about this area.  As we work in
>we base our work on the existing designs, possibly help extend them in
>places, and
>do not overturn the interoperability of a lot of existing data and

I don't think your "mailto" comparison is appropriate. Upon receiving an
mailto URI, I am more likely to kick out a smtp protocol. The same is with
HTTP-URI. But I don't know what subsequent action I can do if someone
tells me, hey, here is a document. I am very curious to know your
software. I want to know what kind of day-and-night difference it makes
from knowing if something is a document. I guess by tell me more
concretely about the logic behind, it may shed lights on my understanding
about your insistence on httpRange-14.

Received on Saturday, 25 June 2011 20:50:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:39 UTC