RE: HTTP mechanics +1, IR semantics -1

I think we can make the most effective, useful progress by proposing and discussing specific RDF and inference rules for the AWWSW.  I think it is fine to use Tabulator as an example application to test and motivate such RDF and rules, and I doubt that TimBL intended it to have any greater authority than that (though he can correct me if I'm wrong).  I think it would be good to have one or two other specific applications in mind also, for the same purpose.

However, I won't personally have time before our next teleconference (Tuesday)  to propose any new RDF and rules.  :(


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

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:30 PM
> To: public-awwsw@w3.org
> Cc: Rees Jonathan
> Subject: Re: HTTP mechanics +1, IR semantics -1
>
>
> As stated, this is not the activity that I signed on to
> participate in.
>
> Having a clear and well specified architecture based on sensible and
> understandable documentation, that has the potential number to server
> development in a wide variety of circumstances, including scientific
> ones, is of interest.
>
> Serving a particular application, and by implication, suggesting that
> it is the canonical semantic web application, does not.
>
> Do others concur with this assessment of the state of our activity,
> and the desired activity going forward?
>
> -Alan
>
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
> >
> > My notes from last Tuesday's telecon say the following:
> >
> > Tim's goal is to have an ontology [I would have called it an "RDF
> > schema"], and maybe eventually feed it into a TAG finding. The
> > ontology is to be driven first by what tabulator needs, then adding
> > rules to cover some of the semantics of headers. Then later, define
> > what it means for something to be a semantic web client; such a
> > thing should do the following things, among others: read rdf, do
> > grddl, understand rdfa.
> >
> > The ontology would be useful for caches and catalogs - the client
> > would know what information is sufficient (on this day this server
> > responded with an expiry date of ...) to reliably access resources
> > without having to go to the web.
> >
> > Also desirable: an ontology for indicating how a server gives a
> > hint to a client about multiple versions.
> >
> > Tim resisted the suggestion that it might be worthwhile to develop
> > a better definition of "information resource" since he thinks this
> > is not a question of ontological relationships in an open system
> > but rather one of type checking in what Tim views as a programming-
> > language-like notation. Tim has previously offered to answer
> > particular questions of the form "is X an information resource" but
> > now states that any effort to create guidelines that would answer
> > such questions generically would be a waste of time.
> >
> > (End of notes.)
> >
> > That's fine, I can work with that. My hypothesis going back to last
> > summer that there was synergy between Tim's aims and mine in this
> > activity may turn out to be false, but so it goes. I suggest we
> > work to get this simpler job (what I call "HTTP mechanics") out of
> > the way as quickly as possible and declare victory. If a group not
> > containing Tim wants to continue to talk about IRs, that's fine,
> > and I see no reason it couldn't make progress.
> >
> > There's clearly a big cultural gulf here, though.
> >
> > I do have a one or two remaining questions about IRs that are not
> > related to the definition of the term, which I believe to still be
> > in scope, and I will post these later.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 14:52:02 UTC