AWWSW

1. Core group: Stuart, Noah, David, Alan, Jonathan, Tim
2. Occasional: Henry, Pat

1. Ontology capturing one or more possible semantics of HTTP
2. FAQ

1. Tim - tabulator and AWWWv2
2. Alan - align web semantics with BFO; validation; audits
3. Jonathan - provenance (e.g. verifiability, repeatability); clarity on 200
4. Pat - "extra baking to get things crisper"
5. Stuart - clarify GRDDL and RDFa
6. Everyone - clarity on IRs (allowability of 200)

1. Mechanics (recording "facts" of interaction at protocol level)
2. What can you say about the rfc2616:Entity (Content-type)
3. What the status codes (200, 30x) communicate
4. What any given 200 response says about the rfc2616:Entity
5. Sources of descriptive information (303, Link:, <link>, ...)
6. Coherence between rfc2616:Representations
7. Relation between the rfc2616:Entity and the referent of the URI
8. Asessing correctness of a mirror (proving sameAs or sameInformationResource)
9. Understanding the neighborhood of 200

1. David's RDF; capturing httpRange-14 in n3 (rules)
2. Alan's contradiction - id="i" in XHTML means #i names part of the document, but assertions made assuming denotation is a person.
3. Stuart's RDF
4. Jonathan's diagram

1. Explore the neighborhood of 200s (without commitment re definition of IR)
2. What are some things that should be *naturally related* to a 200-referent (e.g. journal article, blog)
3. FRBR, DENRIE

1. Scope creep

Inputs

RFC2616, AWWW, httpRange-14

Tabulator's HTTP schema
Follow your nose diagram

HCLS URI Note

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Historical:
  - Topics brainstorm.  Recorded here:
       http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswTopicsBrainstormPage



Tim 11/13:
   .... out of scope for us would be new model of time -- one of
   the many ways -- that's a huge thing. Reasonable for us: Demonstrate
   existing http system.

JAR asked to make a list of candidate topics