W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2005

Re: SWBPD WG Resolution Regarding httpRange-14

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:20:48 -0500
Message-Id: <5303758A-9EF5-11D9-9887-000A9580D8C0@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
To: David Wood <dwood@mindswap.org>

 From the point of view of process, and socially, this
is a curious development.

1. Briefly, The SWBP WG is not the design authority for HTTP URIs,
so it not in a position to say MAY about them. It is in a position
to take part in the debate.

2. Technically, his is a very far-reaching decision rather than a 
comment on best practices.

3. As it stands, the SWBPWG resolution does not resolve the TAG issue.
The resolution of the issue requires the answering of the questions
around it in the context of a consistent architecture for the
Web.

Clearly the SWBPWG has an architecture in mind.
Could the SWBPWG, in proposing an architecture, like to
propose an ontology of Web architecture?

Could they for example please explain, in their
ontology, semantics of an HTTP 200 response?

Could the SWBPWG please answer also answer the following:

1. Who was the creator <http://www.w3.org/2005/moby/dick> ?

2. What is the year of creation of <http://www.w3.org/2005/moby/dick> ?

3. Who was the creator <http://www.w3.org/2005/moby/xyz> ?

4. What is the year of creation of <http://www.w3.org/2005/moby/xyz> ?

This is not to say that the is issue is simple, or that the present 
practice
does not include that the SWBP describes. It asks for a consistent
and worked out alternative.

I had the hope, after the face-face meeting at the TP, that the
task the group was taking on was to lay out that architecture.

Tim BL

Unofficially. Not as Director.

On Mar 26, 2005, at 16:20, David Wood wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Whereas the TAG have not yet resolved httpRange-14 [1], the Semantic 
> Web Best Practices and Deployment WG have resolved unanimously that:
>
>   - an http URI without a hash MAY be used to identify an RDF property.
>
> where MAY is understood in terms of RFC 2119
> and identify is understood in terms of RFC 3986
>
> Our primary concerns are:
>    - Deployed semantic web applications such as Dublin Core [2],
>      Friend-of-a-friend [3], Creative Commons [4], Adobe XMP [5]
>      and RSS 1.0 [6] that use such URIs.
>    - The practical difficulty of using '#' namespace URIs for large
>      vocabularies such as wordnet;
>    - Server side processing of fragment identifier components
>      (i.e. the impossibility of doing server side redirects on
>      '#' URIs).
>
> The lack of resolution of the httpRange-14 issue is impacting the work 
> of the following SWBPD WG Task Forces:
>    - Vocabulary Management
>    - Porting Thesauri
>    - WordNet
>    - RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability
> (see the SWBPD WG homepage for TF list and more information [7])
>
> The SWBPD WG hopes that the TAG will be able to soon reach closure on 
> the httpRange-14 issue, noting the current SW practice embodied in our 
> resolution.  We offer to work with you as appropriate.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
> [2] http://dublincore.org/
> [3] http://www.foaf-project.org/
> [4] http://creativecommons.org/
> [5] http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/main.html
> [6] http://purl.org/rss/1.0/
> [7] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/#Tasks
>
> Regards,
> Dave Wood
> Co-chair, Semantic Web Best Practices & Deployment Working Group
>
Received on Sunday, 27 March 2005 19:20:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:33 GMT