- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:48:21 +0100
- To: public-sparql-12@w3.org
On torsdag 16. januar 2020 19:20:55 CET james anderson wrote: > the suggestion here does not convince any more than #60 did then. OK! > as per the comment from 19.june, it remains, that the application which is > not prepared to model the meta-state and attempts to divine it from the > incidental store state will have no way to guarantee integrity. Admittedly, I do not understand your objection very well. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by meta-state, and therefore, I'm not sure how to translate that requirement to the Web world. The little I know about meta-states consider N processors that have to communicate with each other to maintain a common state over all processors. If that is what you mean by model meta-state, could you please explain how that could be done on the Web with N>1000 autonomous agents that can be in hundreds of states, possibly lie about their state, possibly suddenly get new states that they can be in, and communicate over HTTP? Google Scholar reports only 3160 results for "meta-state", many of which are not in computer science, and "meta-state automaton" just 214, so it doesn't appear to be a very wide-spread term. I hope I'm not the only one who do not understand this, in which case I hope to be pointed at some n00b documentation, but if it is as esoteric as these numbers appear to say, could you please explain it in more popular terms? Best, Kjetil
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2020 21:48:44 UTC