- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:14:13 -0500
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > Right. I maintain that RDF semantics is necessary but not > sufficient for explaining semantic web architecture. OUT OF ORDER. Explaining semantic web architecture (whatever that is) is not on the table and all such discussion should take place elsewhere, at least until we have a document giving a logical model of what HTTP requests and responses mean, or decide to abandon the effort. I *thought* consensus was reached on the plan outlined at the top of http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswVocabulary . It does not mention identity, ambiguity, or semantic web architecture. So if we start talking about these I will cry foul. We have to stay on task or we'll never get anything done! Sure I care about all that other stuff, as the facetious group name implies, but you have to walk before you can run.
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:14:53 UTC