- From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:06:34 +0200
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- Cc: timbl@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, jar@mumble.net, connolly@w3.org
------- Original message ------- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> > > I think that semantics should be drawn only from what is asserted in an > RDF content, but we should not draw from how the RDF is obtained. To > draw conclusion from a network protocol, such as HTTP, essentially bound > URI to its network protocol, which is a very bad idea. To me, this amounts to a decoupling of RDF from web architecture, which is, if I understand thing correctly, exactly opposite to the purpose of RDF. What the server at www.microsoft.org:80 has to say about the URI http://www.microsoft.org/hfy125 is authoritative, according to web architecture, which is not true for *any* other protocol. Therefore any conclusions that can be drawn from that interaction are really interesting. > > URI is just a symbol that denotes a thing in the world. I truly hope that this is not true, not even for RDF. What a URI > denotes (or what it mean) is independent of how you get the > information. For instance, we can develop a human protocol by flashing > a URI card to a person, the person can respond by saying what s/he knows > or don't know or relay the question to someone else. HTTP, in essence, > is just such a request/respond *protocol*. Except http URIs are grounded in a sequence of specifications that makes it possible to differentiate between the owner of microsoft.com and everyone else. The form of URI is just > such a design of that, given a URI, who we should ask the question about > the URI first without any other knowledge about the URI. Not only ask first, but the final authority about the URI. > > I do think that AWWW needs to clarify, but not to say what you can infer > but in an opposite way. I.e., to discourage any "inference" from how a > protocol responds to a request. I most strongly disagree. I even think that this would contradict the http spec and others, that do support drawing the conclusion that a returned representation represents the denoted resource, etc. I do think our disagreement does show the need for a TAG statement about the entailments of a http interaction.us /Mikael > > Xiaoshu Wang > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 15:05:50 UTC