- From: Miles Sabin <miles@mistral.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:00:01 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sean B. Palmer wrote, > If, however, the range of HTTP can be anything, then we're simply > not sure. In that case, we have to go back to one of:- > > * Using the indirection predicates > * Using the test case domain idea > * Possibly looking at the headers for Resource-Type headers:- I think I'm largely in agreement (and I particularly like EARL as an example of the phenomenon I've been blathering on about). My only real quibbles are that I don't see your list of mechanisms as being exhaustive (what about Accept:? or mechanism-less implicit context and convention?), and I'm not convinced that we either need or could constuct an exhaustive list. Piecemeal, ad hoc, case by case solutions might be the best we can hope for and all we need ... after all, that's what we have now, and they more or less work most of the time. This is, I guess, hard-lines for RDF. Or rather, I guess it's tough for a view of the semantic web which understands semantics in a formal sense ... if it's primary designators are infected with the same kinds of ambiguity and vagueness that affect natural language then formal methods are liable to lead to disaster. But I think there room for an alternate view which understands semantics in a much looser and informal sense, and which might be able to accommodate the messiness of the actually existing web. That'd be tougher to reason about mechanically, but then I suppose this is just the age old dilemma of choosing between saying very precise things about nothing very much, or saying imprecise things about quite a lot. Cheers, Miles
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 08:00:08 UTC