W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2002

Re: ISSUE 5.6 - daml:imports as magic syntax

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:37:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020911.163758.61764551.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: heflin@cse.lehigh.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Subject: Re: ISSUE 5.6 - daml:imports as magic syntax
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:25:44 -0400

> I feel like we are about to get in a "Yes it is" / "No it isn't"
> argument.
> Instead of doing that, let me ask some questions to help me understand
> your position. What do you mean by a "semantic account of HTTP GET?"
> Just some basic properties of the function or a complete definition of
> the function? 


> If the later, how formal does this definition need to be?

As formal as the rest of the model theory.

> Why isn't it sufficient that at any given point in time, the GET
> function is deterministic and returns a sequence of characters? 

But then there has to be, in the semantics, an account of how the
characters are turned in to a KB.

> Do you
> think we need to account for the fact that the GET function changes over
> time (since web pages change, move, etc.)? I don't. 

I agree that time-variant behaviour is not necessary.

I think it is
> sufficient to say that the semantics apply to a particular moment in
> time.
> Jeff

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 16:38:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC