Re: Subgroup to handle semantics of HTTP etc?

On 10/16/07, Xiaoshu Wang <> wrote:
> Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> > Two question Alan asked recently (on the list and offline) were
> >
> > - "How can one ever show that a web site is behaving contrary to the
> > web architecture?"  and
> >
> > -  "How do i know what triples an RDF system is able to draw from an
> > HTTP interaction?"
> >
> > Both god questions.
> > The answer to the first question could be to draw all the triples from
> > the HTTP transactions and the documents published, and then check for
> > OWL inconsistencies.  Which begs the second question.
> I think that semantics should be drawn only from what is asserted in an
> RDF content, but we should not draw from how the RDF is obtained.  To
> draw conclusion from a network protocol, such as HTTP, essentially bound
> URI to its network protocol, which is a very bad idea.

It's not that there's any "binding" going on here, it is, IMO, just a
recognition that the entire message is important in understanding what
information the sender is conveying, not just the payload.  If the
message were sent over FTP, I'd still be interested in the whole
message.  The only reason I'm more interested in HTTP is because it's
more pervasive.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 13:08:06 UTC