- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:08:45 -0600
- To: public-awwsw@w3.org, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.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. Neither does Pat, unfortunately. I wonder what the hell he was thinking. > 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. Yas, and Im sure that in principle it could and in practice it will in a few ways, but... >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, ... seems to me that this is the best and most immediate outcome, frankly. >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. As I see it, the main purpose is to do some extra baking to get things crisper. MOare later, this in haste (hence lack of sustantive content.) Pat > >Jonathan -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 22:09:05 UTC