- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:05:37 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 17:36 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > I know that y'all don't want to even think about > stuff like this, and that (as Tim once said) I'm > like a quantum theorist who keeps complaining > about a document written for engineers. But my > point is that since part of the Web is now > semantic, and since y'all are using semantic > language here, that you should at least be aware > how your words might be misunderstood by the > quantum theorists who are actually doing some of > the engineering these days. Yes, I stipulate that webarch vol 1 admits unintended models. I maintain that there is a consistent intended model of webarch vol 1 that separates access and reference; I'd like to get you to see it, but perhaps that's more trouble than its worth; I don't expect the outcome of the present discussion will be to go back and change webarch volume 1, since it was written mostly *outside* the context of the semantic web, i.e. "for engineers". The deliverable of the present discussion is a finding on httpRange-14, which is where the theory and practice of this stuff meet. It's worthwhile getting it right this time. So yes, we do want to think about this stuff; or at least: I do. More on some of the details later, perhaps. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 23:07:56 UTC