Re: AWWSW telecon, Tues 2009-11-23

Concerning use cases, one more, recent input, see [1] ...

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] 
http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2009-December/001047.
html

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:36:59 -0500
> To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, AWWSW TF
> <public-awwsw@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: AWWSW telecon, Tues 2009-11-23
> 
> Thanks for the careful reading; I've made most of these fixes (not yet
> checked in).
> 
> Number 1: I couldn't figure out how to say this in a way that didn't
> mislead the reader into thinking we were only talking about RDF or
> only talking about HTTP.
> 
> Number 2: I just flushed IetfResource; while the difference between
> 3986 and RDF is annoying, I think it can be shoved under the rug.
> 
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>> Hi  Jonathan,
>> 
>> Other suggestions on the draft at
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http-semantics-report.html
>> 
>> 
>> 1.  I suggest adding the following at the beginning of the abstract:
>> [[
>> Suppose the HTTP protocol were modeled as an exchange of RDF assertions
>> between client and server.  What assertions might they be?  When an HTTP
>> server gives a client a 200 or other response to a request, what are the
>> semantics of that response?
>> ]]
>> 
>> 2. s/ht:IetfResource/ht:Resource/g just to make it easier to read.  It's
>> already namespace-qualified, so the "Ietf" prefix doesn't add much.
>> 
>> 3. s/or that they if they aren't/or if they aren't/
>> 
>> 4. s/The client finds or chooses a name/The client finds a name/
>> 
>> 5. s/continuous internal/continuous interval/
>> 
>> 6. s/ceasing to "correspond to" it/potentially ceasing to "correspond
>> to" it/
>> 
>> 7. s/a single content entities/a single content entity/
>> 
>> 8. In the "Correspondences" section, at the end of the ht:correspondsTo
>> paragraph, add "Range: ht:Resource".  Ditto for the ht:toResource
>> paragraph.
>> 
>> 9. I suggest moving this part:
>> [[
>> ht:correspondsTo - property
>> 
>> Whether a content entity corresponds to a resource is not precisely
>> defined; see discussion above. This is a time-sensitive relation.
>> Domain: ht:ContentEntity.
>> ]]
>> to the end of the Correspondences section, and preface it like this:
>> [[
>> If one only cares about the present time, and has no need to distinguish
>> between correspondences that held or will hold at different times, then
>> a simple ht:correspondsTo property can be used:
>> 
>> ht:correspondsTo - property
>> 
>> 
>> Whether a content entity corresponds to a resource is not precisely
>> defined; see discussion above. This is a time-sensitive relation.
>> Domain: ht:ContentEntity.
>> ]]
>> 
>> 10. At the end of the introductory paragraph to the Correspondences
>> section, I suggest adding a paragraph:
>> [[
>> One may think of correspondence as a four-way relation between an
>> ht:Resource, an ht:ContentEntity and a starting and ending time.  Since
>> RDF doesn't directly represent four-way relations, they can be
>> represented using an ht:Correspondence class.  However, in some ways it
>> is more useful to think of ht:Correspondences as existing in their own
>> right anyway, as this allows other information to be attached to them,
>> beyond just the ht:ContentEntity, ht:Resource and start and end times.
>> ]]
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> David
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> --
>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
>> 
>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
>> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
>> 
>>

Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 08:41:26 UTC