W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Terminology (was Re: article on URIs, is this material that can be used by the)

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
Message-Id: <1183071937.7058.139.camel@pav>

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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:16 UTC