On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM, David Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 20:51 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Jeni Tennison <[email protected]> wrote: >> >[ . . . ] But then we would also have to define what 'content' and >> 'description' meant. I have a feeling that might prove just as >> slippery and ultimately unhelpful as 'information resource'. > > Agreed. As long as there's an attempt to define a difference between > the two, we'll be mired in the same impossible > >> I disagree. I've been able to reverse engineer a semantics [1] for >> 'content' that matches the original RDF design (for metadata, [2]) and >> what I think was *intended* by httpRange-14(a). The 'information >> resource' definition is just really unactionable; perhaps reparable >> but I don't think repairing it would help much since that's not even >> the issue. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/ >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-971002/ > > A semantics for 'content'? That's not at all what I read in [1]. Did > you mean to reference some other document? I think [1] describes an > excellent way to formalize what it means to write an assertion about an > information resource (though it's called a "generic information entity" > in that document instead of "information resource"). But it only uses > the term 'content' three times in the body, and only in passing. And it > *never* defines the term. In what sense do you think it defines a > semantics for 'content'?
Tim's 'content' ~= my 'instance' I thought that was clear from the way I've been saying "content / instance" and "content (instance)" and "instance (content)" in my emails I've started using Tim's word since people listen more closely to him than they do to me. Jonathan
