Hi Dan, Giovanni, Thank you for this dialogue - I've been following this thread (or trying to!) for some days now and wondering "where is the data model in all this?".
At the point where "Quite different notions of IR are bouncing around..." would it not make sense to focus on the fact that there are actually several well-established, intricately worked-out and *open* standard models that overlap at this domain, coming from different ends of the "commerciality" spectrum, and themselves based on consensus, pre-existing (for example, largely ISO) standards and solid database theory? I'm talking about CIDOC-CRM and Indecs, of course: www.cidoc-crm.org/ http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf The fact that these 2 models, apparently quite different in domain, converge on the event-based modelling approach, and both describe information resources and other types of real world (it's fairly safe to say, all types) resource in detail but without too much term bloat, would make them strong contenders for a consensus definition - or at the very least, to point towards the shape a consensus should take. Cheers, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Dan Brickley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 March 2012 12:17 To: Giovanni Tummarello Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Annotating IR of any relevance? (httpRange-14) On 26 March 2012 08:51, Giovanni Tummarello <[email protected]> wrote: > Is annotating IRs is of *any value practical and role today* ? > > Anything of value and core interest to wikipedia, imdb, bestbuy, bbc, > geonames, rottentomatoes, lastfm, facebook, whatever. is a NIR. > > We are talking people, products > > Everything on the LOD cloud (for what it matters) its all NIR > > Even pictures, comments, and text are easiy seen and BEST INTERPRETED > as NIR > > they're not just the bytes they're composed of, they're the full > record of their creation, the concept of message. > a facebook picture is a full record of content, comments, tags, > multiple resolutions etc. > The mere stream OF BYTES (the IR) IS JUST A DeTAIL that if it REALLY > needs to be annotated, ... it can. no problem, with proper attributes > "hasResolution, hascopyright" ok i guess that refers to a IR then. I see where you're coming from here, but will be agnostic for now on that point. Instead, I'd like to draw attention to the distressing fact that we don't even seem as a community to be clear on what is meant by IR? Is IR "the mere stream of BYTES", .. or some (slightly) higher abstraction. The OO picture of HTTP/REST I mentioned here recently, for example, has the IR be the hidden-behind-service object whose state we get authoritative samples of via HTTP messages. Making a new http-range-14 agreement without having a common terminology doesn't fill me with hope. Quite different notions of IR are bouncing around here. I tend to read 'IR' as something approximating 'Web-serializable networked entity'; sounds like you're equating it more directly with the content that is sent over the wire? Dan
