Re: Formal/logical interpretation of WebArch: what is WebArch good for?

On Nov 6, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Massimo Marchiori wrote:
> [...]
> Major point: formally speaking, the definition of "resource"
> as it is now equals to a non-definition.

The class/set "resource" is unconstrained, true, but...

> Some consequences: all of these statements:
> the "Good practice: Identify with URIs" good practice in 2.l
> The "Constraint: URIs Identify a Single Resource" in 2.2
> The "Good practice: Avoiding URI aliases" in 2.3.1
> The "Good practice: Consistent URI usage" in 2.3.1
> The "Good practice: Reuse URI schemes" in 2.4
> The "Good practice: URI opacity" in 2.5
> The "Principle: Safe retrieval" in 3.4
> The "Good practice: Consistent representation" in 3.5.1
> The "Good practice: Link identification in 4.4"
> have no formal meaning at all.

Not so. "point" is not constrained in geometry,
but I don't think you would say that Euclid's 5 postulates
have no formal meaning, would you?


> Didn't have time so far to send some comments, and so as the
> time is over, sending this just for the record, i.e. *no formal
> reply is at all expected*.

Last call review is over, but proposed recommendation review
is underway, so all messages to public-webarch-comments are
still treated formally. There are plenty of other fora if you want 

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Sunday, 7 November 2004 05:05:37 UTC