RE: RE: AWWSW homework for 2007-12-11

I've added my comments to the wiki page:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswTopicsBrainstormPage


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.


> > -----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 21:23:14 UTC