RE: A page upon which to get

Hello Jonathan,

Given our other thread, I thought that it would be more helpful to respond wrt to your framing to see how close to this page I can get...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees
> Sent: 03 February 2008 15:49
> To: public-awwsw@w3.org
> Subject: A page upon which to get
>
>
> I'd like to get us onto the same page with regard to basic approach.
> Here is my attempt, which is about as neutral as I know how
> to make it, to articulate just what that same page should be.
> I know that if you substantially disagree you will speak up...
>
>    - We're having a hard time getting past terminology and philosophy
>      and toward making RDF statements.  This was expected; the
>      discussion was stimulated by efforts to write RDF and inference
>      rules.  A bit of time on foundations seems to be in order.  We
>      should attempt to agree to disagree when necessary, so that we can
>      move away from preliminaries and forward to RDF.

Ok...

>    - 'Resource' is not a category
>      . TAG members seem to disagree on the meaning of 'resource'...
Maybe... not sure... and maybe not just the TAG.

>      . but what it means, or whether it's a category, doesn't matter for
>        AWWSW since the question does not bear on AWWSW's goal of
>        producing RDF
Willing to try that as a premise.

>      . 'thing' = rdfs:Resource is proposed as the uninformative
>        'anything' category.  rdfs:Resource is not (necessarily)
>        the same as 'resource' sensu AWWW, RFC2616, or Fielding

Ok... yes 'thing' == rdfs:Resource at least as a working assumption.

>      . Other classes will be harvested or synthesized as needed for
>        AWWSW purposes
>
>    - 'Representation' is not a category
>      . We will not attempt a 'representation' class for use in RDF
>      . Can we agree that there should be RDF-expressible relationships
>        (including perhaps 'something:represents' and 'log:uri') among URIs,
>        the things we retrieve upon doing GETs, and the
>        things named by the URIs, without immediately going into the
>        details of what the relationships are?
>      . If so, it will be useful to have a category (maybe more than
>        one) for the things we retrieve, the things that potentially play
>        the role of "representation".  Tim has proposed
>        http:ResponseMessage.  JAR has proposed rfc2616:Entity.
>        This distinction is not important and consideration of the
>        choice can be postponed.

Ok...
>
>    - Recording the 'facts' of an HTTP interaction (e.g. what the status
>      code was) (a) is not very interesting, (b) does not qualify as
>      "inference", (c) is necessary for the expression of prerequisites to
>      rules of the sort to be explored by AWWSW.

Ok... agreed.

>      When we write down
>      these 'facts' we may give URIs to things that we need to talk about,
>      such as messages and entities. Ordinarily these things wouldn't have
>      URIs. It doesn't matter much whether these
>      things are "information resources", except insofar as this bears
>      on the issue of defining "information resource", which is a different
>      question.
>
>    - Substantial inferences from HTTP interactions are subject to the
>      agent's trust filter.  (JAR says: Some questions of interest to
>      such filters are: Is the site I'm talking to following RFC2616? Is
>      it following web architecture (AWWW)?  It is important to
>      understand what fallacies could arise if the agent thought "yes"
>      when the reality was "no".)
>
> Some of the major issues hanging.  Punt if (and only if) possible.
>
>    - What class is the range of "represents" and how should it be defined
>    - What is the role and import of contradictions in the AWWSW project
>
> Proposed path forward
>
>    - Activities in progress and to be continued: (TimBL & David Booth
>      have contributed)
>      . Inferences & contradictions from headers.  (To what extent is
>        trust required in order to make these inferences?)
>      . Inferences & contradictions from content.  (Factual statements
>        about content are uncontroversial; belief in interpretations of
>        what the content "says" are necessarily subject to trust policy.)
>      . Specification of what it means to be a well-behaved
>        (trustworthy) server

Ok... I think.


Regards

Stuart

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 11:17:02 UTC