- From: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:42:02 +0900
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2012/3/27 Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>: >>> 2012/3/26 Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>: >>>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>>> thank you for your detailed input. I'll add my comments inline. >>>> >>>> 2012/3/26 Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>: >>>>> >>>>> On 2012-03 -26, at 01:31, トーレ エリクソン wrote: >>>>>>>> This proposal entails a partial reversion of the httpRange-14 >>>>>>>> resolution. Specifically, it suggests that a representation retrieved >>>>>>>> from a HTTP URI will never* be equivalent to what the URI denotes (the >>>>>>>> resource), but will always be a description (of the state) of the >>>>>>>> resource, eliminating the risk of confusing a resource with its >>>>>>>> description. >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> However, if you don't own the URI, stating this seems to irresponsible. >>>>>> The owner might add a content-negotiated Swedish translation with a >>>>>> dc:title of "Hittad" and make your statement invalid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is hair-splitting -- yes, a generic IR URI may indeed by correspond to >>>>> a series of more specific versions in different languages >>>>> (See http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic and the associated ontology) >>>>> and one can argue whether people incorrectly actually use >>>>> one title to refer to the whole lot, but I think it is useful. >>>> >>>> I have no problem with adding the title to the generic resource, >>>> especially if you own the URI. My understanding of Jonathan's text was >>>> though that by looking at one representation titled "Trouvee", one >>>> could infer that all representations would have the same title. >>> >>> This is an incorrect reading of what I wrote. I was very careful in >>> what I said, and I did not say this. >> >> Sorry if I misrepresented your text. I'll explain why I thought it >> meant this below. >> >> You started with >>>> >> To say that any representation retrieved from "http://example/hen" has >> (or will have) "Trouvée" as its title, we can write (in Turtle >> [turtle]) >> [ir:onWebAt "http://example/hen"] dc:title "Trouvée". >> [this tells that] if they dereference that URI, they will get >> something with that dc:title [1] >>>> >> >> And then used the generic URI instead of the blank node. >> >>>> >> A common practice is to use an absolute URI as a name for a (generic) >> information entity that is on the Web at that URI. >> <http://example/hen> dc:title "Trouvée". >>>> >> >> Then you followed up with >> >>>> >> Whether we can expect in general that a dereferenceable URI will be >> understood as a name for a (generic) information entity on the Web at >> that URI is the essence of the heated httpRange-14 debate >>>> >> >> I assumed that this meant that when following httpRange-14 the RDF >> above is expected. > > It would only be expected if it were true, and it would only be true > if *any* representation, not just one of them, had that property. That is what I thought at first, by looking at the initial RDF. Then I read "This is a useful thing to say, since it is predictive: It tells someone that if they retrieve using URI, they will get something with that dc:title." This sounded a lot as if all the representations are constrained to have the same title. [snip] >> My train of thought was this: If a HTML document is retrieved by with >> a 200 GET, then under httpRange-14 this is an information resource, >> and also a generic information entity. Let's say that the HTML >> document received has the dc:title "Trouvee". Then the generic >> resource also has the same title (according to [1]) > > That's the fallacy. The generic resource only has the property if, no > matter which representation is retrieved (across conneg variation > etc.), that representation has the property. Since this is impossible to check for the user, wouldn't it be difficult to have predictable meta data in practice? > I guess I didn't make this clear, but it's a difficult idea to > express. If you want to know what bit of philosophy inspired me to > express it this way, see _Truth, Meaning, Reality_ by Horwich. I'll make sure to put that on my e-book reader later. > I thought this would be clear in the overall context of the note. I > guess I have to look again to see how I failed to communicate. I hope I've been of some help.
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 21:42:31 UTC