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

RE: httpRange-14

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:48:19 -0700
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <070701c35528$0d7155d0$620ba8c0@beasys.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Tim Berners-Lee
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:26 AM
> To: Tim Bray
> Cc: Norman Walsh; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: httpRange-14
> You say that the TAG should concentrate on the web as it has been
> before the semantic web and web services, and that you will
> be happy if
> the architecture works for that, even if it does not work for web
> services and semantic web.
> That is a pity, partly because the web is no good unless it can be a
> sound foundation for the semantic web and web services too. WSDL and
> RDF have real serious issues on the table, working groups
> which need a
> consistent framework.

I think the Web has been pretty good so far.  And it has provided a good
foundation for Web services.  There are regular grumblings in Web services
land about the limitations of Web, but people are certainly living with the
Web roughly as-is.  WSDL has brought up an issue that we have more work to
do on, but it's hardly holding up their work.  Now maybe their issue of
identifiers is httpRange-14, but I don't think so.  They aren't doing any of
the same kind of computations that Semantic Web folks want to do on the
identifiers.  WS folks don't need to differentiate between People and
Documents.  Perhaps in the fullness of time, WS will run into this problem,
but it's not stopping development and deployment of Web services.
Therefore, this problem is not central to Web services.  Further, I think
that many members of WSD would be dismayed that their simple and good faith
request for "can we do our frag-ids this way" - which was based upon a
Semantic Web request for identifiers for all important WSDL concepts - would
then be used to say that http-range 14 has to be solved for V1 of Web Arch
document.  I think it is clearly a Semantic Web problem.  I'm not sure what
other domains are affected.  But not directly a WS problem.

> It is also a pity, given that the Advisory Committee asked us
> specifically to give guidance in these new areas, with priority.

And the AC also gave us some guidance that the preference was for earlier
publication, potentially ommitting work related to enabling other
applications.  But we then told the AC that there was no conflict between
the Web as-is and future applications like SW and WS. hmm..

Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 12:50:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC