- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:27:11 -0500
- To: public-awwsw@w3.org
Our starting point remains this document: http://esw.w3.org/topic/ AwwswTopicsBrainstormPage . It appears it didn't get much attention prior to the last meeting, so I hope everyone gets a chance to review it this time. The last meeting began at the top of the file by considering the question of what might one infer from a 200 response. Of course we're not at a point where we can even ask this meaningfully; we immediately got onto the question of whether by "permitting" any inferences at all we're interpreting or extending HTTP 1.1, or doing something else. I've expanded on the result of this discussion a bit in the wiki page. I remember that on the call Pat said something of the form "but the real problem to be solved here is ...". Unfortunately this didn't find its way into the meeting record and I don't remember the rest of the sentence. Pat, could you give your ideas on where a group like this might best put its efforts? For background, the assumption is that formalizing HTTP (or rather some "best practices" extension/ restriction/fragment of it) would benefit semantic web agents such as Tabulator, applications that want to be extra careful about provenance (where did something get said - in a resource? in a particular representation? in a response? in an "essence"?), and many other kinds of applications. I was also personally of the opinion that formalization could help force answers to many of the thorny questions that keep arising as a result of vagueness and ambiguity in AWWW and other informal specifications, and that such clarification would make everyone happier; but I don't know whether anyone agrees with me on that. So we are not starting with a crisp problem statement here, and maybe that's a bad thing. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 15:27:31 UTC