- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:56:08 -0600
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 23:33, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > On Tuesday, Jan 14, 2003, at 19:58 US/Eastern, Roy T. Fielding wrote: [...] > > I know why your model breaks. Try describing caching. > > Ok, Roy, so using my model or Sandro's, show why when you > try to describe caching it breaks. > > > For real, > > not in your imagination, but on paper and with appropriate definitions > > for the metadata that is included in HTTP responses so that the > > client has an interoperable clue as to what you are talking about. > > Then try describing hierarchical proxies, gateways, etc. And if you > > are willing to continue work on that model, use it to describe the > > semantics of a Web to GSM SMS gateway using POST. I already did that > > stuff seven years ago, > > If you have it in the form of a formal system, then I think > a pointer to it would be very interesting. I know Dan Connolly did > some work in Larch, Yes; at the May 2000 web conference, I presented Specifying Web Architecture with Larch http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/www9-larch/all.htm which traces my thoughts on formalizing the web from discussions with Burchard and company circa 1995, problems with that simple model, fixes to various problems, culminating in a model of HTTP caching that, after discussion with TimBL and others, I find quite satisfactory... http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/HTTP http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/HTTP.html http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/HTTP.lsl specifically, the bit about... % The Conditional GET Axiom, If_Modified_Since case % c.f. %html Ari Luotonen and Kevin Altis<br /> %html <cite><a href='http://www1.cern.ch/PapersWWW94/luotonen.ps'>World-Wide Web Proxies</a></cite><br /> %html Proceedings of the 1st International WWW Conference, May 1994. The larch traits that I use to do my thinking about web architecture http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/ cover a variety of issues, from URI syntax http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/URIclient.lsl to RDF model theory http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFAbSyn.lsl to transcribing (and finding a small bug in) Wadler's 1999 formalization of XPath/XSLT http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/XPathWadler Perhaps more evidence that TimBL and I are not just talking is the URI syntax implementation we've worked on, including some test cases that represent issues with RFC2396. I'm not sure we've reported them all yet... http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/uripath http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/uripath.py http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/uripath.html Actually, timbl and I haven't quite reached consensus on whether relative URI references are allowed in some parts of the uripath API. But our discussions are very much based on running code, machine-checked formalisms, and real-world applications... such as automation of the W3C digital library http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/ and managing my own personal travel itineraries http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/travel.html http://www.w3.org/2003/02dc-sna/itin1.rdf http://www.w3.org/2003/02dc-sna/itin1.png http://www.w3.org/2003/02dc-sna/itin1b.txt http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/events/ As TimBL mentioned, cwm implements the integration of all this stuff... connecting KR to WWW. The log:semantics primitive in cwm is a simpler model than the 9711theory/HTTP model... but I think it's a useful simplification, the way Newtonian physics is a useful simplification of relativistic physics. I hope to elaborate on that analogy sometime between now and our Feb ftf... > > so I expect a little more than talk at this > > point from the W3C. It's tricky to manage the balance between development and "talk" here in www-tag. I'll thank you not to jump to conclusions, assuming we're only talking, and to trust that we're each doing our level best to be constructive. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 11:57:40 UTC