W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2012

RE: Yorick Wilks on Semantic Web & httpRange-14

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 12:57:06 -0700
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AF284BF@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
OK, let me try this out as a gloss -- does this work for you?

We've devised a communication system, call it "SW14" ("Semantic Web following httprange-14").

In this system, there is a computational mapping called UDDP which, given a URI x, UDDP(x) discovers the owner of x, and asks the owner of x the definition of x, and returns that definition.

A and B are communicating with C. A decides to use URI X, because A likes the definition UDDP(X).  
B decides to use URI X, and you want B to also agree that UDDP(X) is what B wants to say.
A sends message M to C, where M uses X as a term.
B sends message N to C, where N uses X also.

Now C can use UDDP(X) to discover what A and B meant by X, if C cares.  Lots of the time C doesn't care about any particular terms, so it's not reasonable to include UDDP(X) in the messages M or N, and the definitions might even be large and complicated.

Now, some people might think this system is overly complicated, there are disagreements about what UDDP should be. Currently SW14  uses UDDP14, which says that either X has a fragment identifier, and UDDP14(X) works by getting X without the fragment and then looking in the 200 response, or else X has no fragment identifier and there's a 303 response which is retrieved to get UDDP14(X).

There's some arguments about changing SW14, and making a new convention, and that's what all these choices are about.

Some groups are using a different system (SW15, SW16, ...) with different conventions, usually with a different proposals for UDDP.

And you're hoping the TAG will resolve the differences between these groups and lead them all to the one true UDDP.

But in fact, web architecture doesn't really define this, doesn't restrict the languages that can be used. The languages used in M and N and the contexts for X within M and N determine the UDDP to apply to X to get its definition.  There are SW14 languages which use UDDP14, but other languages which use some other protocol or method. 

There is no "true" UDDP, nothing to "discover" here.  If C gets two messages, M and N, both using URI X, C can only reasonably assume that X is used the same way  by A and B if the languages of their messages M and N agree on the UDDP convention.  

"httpRange-14" as a TAG finding fails because it doesn't establish the scope, and doesn't acknowledge that there are many legitimate languages in use where the meaning of using a URI within them doesn't follow UDDP14.


Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 19:57:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:53 GMT