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

Hello everyone, 

I just wanted to thank people for the discussions on this thread, and a
couple of others in the area of terminology and how TAG tends to use words
like representation.

I've been a member of the TAG for a scant few months, and still regard
myself as on a steep learning curve on this particular topic area. I see
my role, as editor of the httpRange-14 finding, primarily as trying to
capture adequately the wisdom of others.

So, like Dan, I declare an interest in getting this right, in thinking
about these questions and in writing it down in a useful form.

I'd also like to reserve the right to ask really dumb questions from time
to time...

Best wishes
Rhys


-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Dan Connolly
Sent: 29 June 2007 00:06
To: Pat Hayes
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; Dan Brickley; Henry S. Thompson; Tim
Berners-Lee; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Terminology (was Re: article on URIs, is this material that
can be used by the)


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 Friday, 29 June 2007 06:49:41 UTC