- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:55:47 -0500
- To: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
I have really got to get back to my day job for a while. But I'm so frustrated with how things are going that I wrote a wiki page. http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswVocabulary My new thoughts are: - Let's start actually working on ontology, not just terms, and try to surface our disagreements formally using OWL (not a new idea but we've lacked a process for doing this, and I'm suggesting one) - But use prose (term requests) as a stepping stone toward OWL so we can separately wrangle the ideas and encode them (i.e. I have OWL swapped out but still want to do this) - Without constraints (domain, range, subclass, disjoint, restrictions, etc.) we only have a concept map (thanks Pat), which is useless - Let's forget about the *syntax* of requests and responses and instead focus on their *meaning* under various regimes (thought experiment: a compiler that translates statements (about a resource) expressed using HTTP into statements expressed using RDF - how the parser works is an uninteresting internal detail) - Failure to respect the protocol should be detectable as a logical contradiction (pointing the way toward a validator, for those who like that kind of thing)
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 00:56:23 UTC