W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Are MGET descriptions workable/necessary?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:25:46 +0200
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: "ext Phil Dawes" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-Id: <B64D36B4-1E81-11D8-8354-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>


On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 01:55 Europe/Helsinki, ext Phil Dawes wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> Patrick Stickler writes:
>>
>> On Saturday, Nov 22, 2003, at 01:21 Europe/Helsinki, ext Phil Dawes
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> If this is the case, why bother with the MGET stuff at all? It seems
>>> like a lot of hassle for something you can't even rely on.
>>
>> Because, in order to bootstrap the SW, there must be a standardized
>> protocol by which, having only a URI, one can obtain an authoritative
>> description of the resource denoted by that URI.
>>
>
> Why authoritative?
>

Uh. Er. Because of trust, of course.

> Wouldn't a bunch of non-authoritative term brokers built up by social
> concensus do the same job, but without the problems that have
> generated so much noise on this list.

Hardly.

>
> It appears to me that decoupling the terms themselves from the
> mechanisms of looking up their descriptions and meanings is of
> paramount importance to creating a scalable, resilient SW.

Eh? And how pray tell is that actually supposed to work, much less
provide a scalable resilient SW?

Decouple the terms from their meaning or how one gets at their meaning?

Think about what you're suggesting...

Patrick


>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 November 2003 12:21:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT