- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:01:15 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F7270EB.3090705@openlinksw.com>
On 3/27/12 8:48 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > Then representations > wouldn't *always* be descriptions. The question then would be where to > draw the line. This is an important point. Representations aren't always descriptions, but descriptions are always a form of representation. Likewise, a definition is a kind of description, but every description isn't a definition. David Booth: My comment above is why I struggle with your choice of a definition oriented relation (based on "isDefinedBy") over a description oriented relation (based on "describedby") in your proposal. A de-referencable identifier (e.g., an HTTP URI) has a referent, and the referent in question has some kind of representation expressed via a graph pictorial oriented syntax/markup. Hopefully, if we get representation, description, and definition sorted out we can then deal with content, mime types and eventual triangulation to representation, description, and definition. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 02:01:40 UTC