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.


> 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...


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:48 UTC