Re: URIs, used in RDF, that do not have associated documentation

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

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.



Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 02:01:40 UTC