W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2010

Re: another draft

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:52:26 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgXs_JtJeJgmGzV2cKYLYju9jfXZRuhOKf2rAJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Thanks for everyone's comments. I do not yet feel confident enough
about this material to want to inflict it on the TAG as pre-F2F
reading. I have been working on it steadily but I find it hard to keep
all the pieces in my head: reference, meaning, inference, web
architecture, RDF, HTTP, especially given what an incoherent mess you
have when you put it all together. I will try a few more ways to crack
the nut, and will come up with something to talk about next week at
the F2F.

Right now it looks to me as if my attempt to invent a theory of 200
responses that gives some motivation for httpRange-14 is doomed.
Alan's approach of making many little theories specific to particular
kinds of 200-things may get further. (Perhaps there should be a
standing information-resource committee, sort of like the proposed
standing HTML extension committee, that blesses assertions that a
given class, e.g. frbr:Work or iao:ICE, is or is not a subclass of
200-allowed-thing.) Another thing I want to look at again is the idea
of couching the problem as "HTTP over SPARQL", which makes the problem
more operational and less metaphysical.

Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 21:53:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:08 UTC