- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:25:27 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 20:36 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote: > Thanks for the careful reading; I've made most of these fixes (not yet > checked in). Hey, thanks for all the work *you* did on it! > > 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. Uh . . . but we *are* only talking about HTTP and RDF, aren't we? To my mind, we're talking about capturing HTTP semantics in RDF. I don't think we should try to bite off more than HTTP (and just a portion of that), and I certainly think we should use RDF to capture the semantics. I suggest changing the first two paragraphs to: [[ Discussions of Web architecture and the semantics of communication on the Web get mired in confusion over definitions and how different conceptual models of Web resources compare. We are speaking here not about the details of Web protocols, but about what these protocols say about resources "identified" by URIs, and how messages in those protocols relate to these resources. By creating a modest formal semantics we hope to be able to put such discussions on a rational footing and promote transparency by surfacing as many assumptions as possible. This should in turn help point to a way forward for work on a variety of architectural and curatorial questions. For example, suppose the HTTP protocol were modeled as an exchange of RDF assertions between client and server. What assertions might they be? Or when an HTTP server gives a client a 200 or other response to a request, what are the semantics of that response? ]] > > Number 2: I just flushed IetfResource; while the difference between > 3986 and RDF is annoying, I think it can be shoved under the rug. Sounds good. Again, thanks for all your work on this! -- 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 Tuesday, 8 December 2009 23:26:06 UTC