[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Resources Redeemed

• To: 'Tim Bray' <tbray@t...>
• Subject: RE: Resources Redeemed
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:30:03 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

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@t...]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:38 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re:  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

• Prev by Date: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Next by Date: Re: Are There URIs in Heaven?
• Previous by thread: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Next by thread: misunderstanding of XML Schema ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread