- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:00:54 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Sorry, as an aid to organizing my own thoughts I just started up Protege once and the thing evolved. But I think you and I are interested in very different questions. You have heard my opinions on this many times. As a result the coverage of the two sets of artifacts is almost disjoint (forgetting Request and Response which I don't consider part of the ontology). Let me know what you think I should be borrowing, or if I've recorded information that you think is wrong or incomplete. Jonathan On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > I would rather start with the ontology and rules that I drafted over a > year earlier, and combine ideas from yours. After all, that work was > done for this purpose. Is there some reason you think that work should > be ignored? > http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Jan/0001.html > > David > > On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 09:10 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> We could take up my proposal to take my http semantics ontology as the >> embryo of a note or report with December 1 target for a draft. That >> is, the note would consist of an introduction, the rdfs:comments from >> the ontology (suitably cleaned up and expanded), and any additional >> necessary exposition that doesn't fit in the comments. >> >> http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http.owl >> >> The core of this is the class Correspondence modeling the three-place >> relation wa-representation corresponds to wa-resource since/until time >> t, which came from a suggestion by Pat (thanks Pat). >> >> This diagram is more or less in alignment with it: >> >> http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/jar-diagram-7.pdf >> >> and the shell script (buggy, preliminary) that implements it is: >> >> http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHome?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=nose-follow.sh >> >> The biggest missing piece, I think, is a semantics for 301/302/307 >> that makes fewer assumptions than I had proposed to make (per exchange >> with Stuart). I think this means figuring out what the domain and >> range of "located at" are. >> >> It would be nice to say more about 303 and LRDFF, but that seems like >> work we can put off. >> >> Any alternative or additional agenda suggestions? >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> > -- > 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 Friday, 25 September 2009 17:01:36 UTC