[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
And I agree that the web architecture should
not say precisely what a resource is because
that would invoke some of the topics I list
there (which, to be fair, come from a paper by
John Sowa). These are topics that humans
can code into RDF if they are useful for
selection of a resource, and that a resource
might use for selection of a representation.
I think it useful, personally, to consider
the resource as an authoritative selector.
The human says what the resource is; the
implementers build a server, and we go on.
This does open the discussion to relationships
among the descriptions provided by the owner
of the resource, the so-called authority, and
assertions made by other entities.
As the semantic web comes into general
use, the issues of establishing and maintaining
webs of authoritative assertions must be
looked into more carefully. Those topics
were of concern to me when I wrote the
paper "Building a Better Golem" for the
now sadly defunct Markup Languages magazine
(Volume 2;4) as I was researching the effects
of autonomous agents that select resources
for human owners, the responsibilities of
the owners of the agents, and so forth.
Those are just my models for thinking about
this as derived from the literature in the
field. They are not nor should they be
construed to be architectural.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:38 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Resources Redeemed
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Thus, the biases, intentions, philosophies, behaviors, applicable contexts
> such as background, social commitment, discussion, negotiation,
> and exceptions are proper topics of study of resources. One does
> not study the resource by determining what it is but by what it
> does.
Hm... almost. The Web Architecture doesn't say what a resource is, just
how you name and talk to them. RDF and humans can reasonably talk about
what a resource is. Good turn of phrase though. -Tim
|
