Re: Proposal to amend the httpRange-14 resolution

On 3/31/12 1:18 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 3/31/12 9:01 AM, Tore Eriksson wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:09 AM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org>  wrote:
>>> The basic requirements behind issue-57 and the httpRange-14
>>> rework are:
>>>
>>>   1. There must be a standard, algorithmic way for a client,
>>>   given a target URI, to find the URI owner's implicit or
>>>   explicit *definition* for that URI.
>>>
>>>   2. The URI owner must be able to provide an arbitrarily
>>>   detailed definition (though not necessarily for a URI of
>>>   every possible syntactic form).
>>>
>>>   3. In the case where a URI owner has served a page with
>>>   no explicit URI definition, the algorithm must specify an
>>>   implicit definition (though possibly empty).
>> I just don't get this last requirement. Why is this necessary and how
>> can you define something if you don't know what it is? And what is an
>> empty definition, especially considering the OWA?
>>
>> Tore
>>
>>
> David,
>
> 'definition' doesn't work, ultimately.
> This discourse domain (AWWW and Web lore in general) is already 
> littered with literature that's uses  'description' where you seek to 
> replace with 'definition'.
>
> Where are the resources on the Web today that bear content with 
> rdfs:isDefinedBy relations in the manner you suggest? I can show you a 
> significant amount of resources that bear content with "describedby" 
> (or similar) relations. Thus, you suggestion ultimately triggers:
>
> 1. IANA registration
> 2. Regeneration of existing resources.
>
> And all of the above, you still have lots of debates to follow.
>
> 'definition' is too specific and its intuition value is very low, in 
> this context.
>
> A URI is an Identifier. In the Web medium (or system) it can identify 
> the location of a Web resource en route to actual content access. It 
> can also be used to name entities from other non Web realms where 
> de-reference resolves to a location from which description oriented 
> content (constrained by content mime type) is accessed.
>
> For what system do you anticipate explicit URI definition being 
> definitively useful? An ontology for Linked Data? An ontology for the 
> Semantic Web? An ontology of the World Wide Web?
>

David,

Here is another route to solving the issue of preferred relation 
predicates re. wdrs:describedby and rdfs:isDefinedBy.

Instead of simply requiring rdfs:isDefinedBy, why not add the following 
relation:

rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:subPropertyOf wdrs:describedby .

I can add the relation above to an ontology that I use for my inference 
context. Once in place, where you see rdfs:isDefinedBy I will have the 
option to see either rdfs:isDefinedBy or my preferred wdrs:describedby. 
All of this happens in the TBox leaving masses of existing ABox 
relations out in the wild unchanged.

How about that?

I've cc'd in the LOD mailing list as this is a great example of semantic 
relations delivering amicability :-)

-- 

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