W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

Re: yet another sidetrack on what a URI identifies

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:31:09 -0500
Cc: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Message-Id: <69E9104D-324F-11D7-B288-000393914268@w3.org>

On Friday, Jan 24, 2003, at 12:27 US/Eastern, Jos De_Roo wrote:

> [that was indeed a very clear talk at www2000
> ...]
>> 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
> right, I think I understand that after today
> and we are really mistaken when not making the
> distinction between e.g. the doc:Work and the log:Formula
> (that's quite a shock and I'm hoping to repair soon...)

I haven't looked at what you have done there, but
if you have just coalesced the notions of doc:Work
and log:Formula, for example by using
<foo>  :says  { whatever } rather than
[ is log:semantics of <foo> ] log:includes { whatever }
then that is just a greater form of simplification,
which is still a valid system.  It doesn't give you
such a access to what is going on.
It is just like the simplification which
log:semantics is when it doesn't model all
of the HTTP protocol.

> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 19:10:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:57 UTC