Re: Formally specifying HTTP GET operations

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 08:04, Jim Hendler wrote:
> 
> At 8:12 AM -0500 11/27/02, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >There are several points in which we desire to formally specify an HTTP GET
> >operation. When we wish to assert the 'contents' of a URI, we wish to assert
> >the contents of an RDF document obtained when dereferencing the URI. This
> >exposes the need to formally define the HTTP GET operation itself.
> >
> >[snip]
> 
> 
> 
> >Formally defining an HTTP GET operation might be out of the scope of OWL,
> >but hopefully this description will demonstrate some of the issues in
> >defining OWL entailments that cross HTTP GET operations.
> >
> >Jonathan
> 
> I am afraid that I agree with Jonathan that this is likely out of 
> scope for the WG.

Are you saying that this part of peter's proposal for 5.8
is out of scope?

[[[
4/ OWL can use XML Schema non-list simple types defined at the top
   level of an XML Schema document and given a name, by using the URI
   reference constructed from the URI of the document and the local name
of
   the simple type.
]]]

I think there is a case for saying that is out of scope, but
I'm not sure what you're saying.

This point 4/ can't be specified, to my satisfaction, without
*some* formalization of HTTP GET.

I suggested[7Nov] formalizing it as part of the interpretation
structure. PatH agreed[19Nov] that could work.

[7Nov] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0102.html

[19Nov]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0233.html

[...]

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 09:31:09 UTC