- From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:48:20 -0700
- To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Cc: "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
>> Rubbish. They may *optionally* provide these facilities, and >> no extension is needed beyond those which HTTP allows. > > Please, let's not use "may" or "various" sort of phrasing. If an > "option" is > rarely be honored, what is the point to discuss it. It seems to work for Accept and Accept-Language, which are optional. > Imagine yourself trying to describe something in RDF. Are you > honestly going to start an RDF engine behind just for that? If I'm going to be serving to resource-limited clients, then yes. I'd have to anyway for a SPARQL endpoint, mm? >> I expect smart servers to be more feasible than smart clients. >> Servers have the advantages of better hardware, caching, and >> more available information. > > A server can be a sophisticated web service, can't it? And it will > be case > in SW. Software agents trying to things for human. We use these > agent to > handle RDF, not ourself. Good, I'm glad you agree.
Received on Sunday, 30 July 2006 18:49:15 UTC