- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:52:26 -0400
- To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Thanks for everyone's comments. I do not yet feel confident enough about this material to want to inflict it on the TAG as pre-F2F reading. I have been working on it steadily but I find it hard to keep all the pieces in my head: reference, meaning, inference, web architecture, RDF, HTTP, especially given what an incoherent mess you have when you put it all together. I will try a few more ways to crack the nut, and will come up with something to talk about next week at the F2F. Right now it looks to me as if my attempt to invent a theory of 200 responses that gives some motivation for httpRange-14 is doomed. Alan's approach of making many little theories specific to particular kinds of 200-things may get further. (Perhaps there should be a standing information-resource committee, sort of like the proposed standing HTML extension committee, that blesses assertions that a given class, e.g. frbr:Work or iao:ICE, is or is not a subclass of 200-allowed-thing.) Another thing I want to look at again is the idea of couching the problem as "HTTP over SPARQL", which makes the problem more operational and less metaphysical. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 21:53:01 UTC