Re: Subgroup to handle semantics of HTTP etc?

I am hoping that the formalization will help clarity. Where there may  
be disagreement, we can agree in advance to work towards formalizing  
each possibility and, perhaps, in doing so, be able to see  
consequences of those options that were not immediately evident. So  
that would be my strategy.


On Oct 16, 2007, at 10:06 PM, wrote:

> Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>> We wondered whether it would be  good idea to put together some
>> kind of a task force under the TAG  to propose set of these
>> axioms and an ontology.
> I'm certainly willing to support at least some further exploration of
> whether this would be a good idea.
> One cautionary thought occurs to me:  we've tried for some time to  
> set out
> the semantics of HTTP more informally, in English (I.e. to further  
> clarify
> the implications of RFC 2616).  At least we've tried to set down  
> important
> bits of it, such as what a 303 implies, etc.  Agreement hasn't  
> typically
> been easy.
> Sometimes when one expediates the formalization of such things, it  
> adds
> exactly the rigor (rigour?) and clarity necessary to proceed  
> quickly and
> yield a clearer result.   Sometimes trying to formalize before one  
> agrees
> informally makes the whole discussion that much harder and more
> cumbersome.  I really have no clear intuition as to how this one  
> would go.
> So, I'm quite willing to try it with HTTP, but if it doesn't start  
> to feel
> good pretty quickly, I'd be tempted to ask whether we should  
> instead set a
> rule that we don't go too far in formalizing any bits (e.g. 303
> implications) until we can at least get heads to nod in agreement  
> on an
> informal explanation.
> Noah
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 02:18:14 UTC