- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:11:11 -0400
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: "wangxiao@musc.edu" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, W3C-TAG Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Jonathan A Rees <jar@mumble.net>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On 2007-10 -17, at 18:57, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: >> From: Xiaoshu Wang >> [ . . . ] >> 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. > Xiaohu, I agree that these semantics should not be considered part of the semantics of the document. I think what you are getting at is that the semantic web function G (u) which is the graph you get from looking up the URI u should not be polluted with HTTP stuff. In that I agree. It is a avery important architectural principle. But i also agree with David, that if you *do* take off the covers and discuss the HTTP protocol, then RDF is a good tool. Also, I think it is valuable to check the consistency of the things yu get from HTTP (llike <u> is a document) and the things you get from that or other documents (<u> is a Person or a property, etc). Tim > I disagree. RDF is used to formally express information that may > have originated anywhere. HTTP response codes are a reasonable > source of information. However, the recipient has the prerogative > to treat that information differently from information in the body > of an HTTP response if desired. > > > > David Booth, Ph.D. > HP Software > +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com > http://www.hp.com/go/software > > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not > represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 02:11:19 UTC