RE: AWWSW homework for 2007-12-11

Hello Jonathan,

I need to give my regrets for this week... sorry.

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees
> Sent: 06 December 2007 15:27
> To: public-awwsw@w3.org
> Subject: AWWSW homework for 2007-12-11
>
>
> 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 Monday, 10 December 2007 12:08:41 UTC