Re: Subgroup to handle semantics of HTTP etc?

It would be nice to have such a standard vocabulary. There was a very  
incomplete version from Nokia:

http://sw.nokia.com/WebArch-1

which no longer seems to be available at that URL, but a copy of it  
remains on schemaweb

http://www.schemaweb.info/schema/SchemaInfo.aspx?id=81

Could the Nokia folks put it online again? I'd like to keep using it  
until the official one comes out.
I was thinking of using it for a caching engine, keeping track of  
which rdf documents I got where and when on the web.

Henry

PS. There is also this: http://www.w3.org/2006/http# but it is  
clearly too low level.

On 15 Oct 2007, at 22:07, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

>
> At the Cambridge Semantic Web Gathering a few days ago I was was  
> chatting with Jonathan Rees and Alan Ruttenberg  from Science  
> commons about basically web architecture from the semantic web  
> point of view. Alan felt an urgent need for much more concrete  
> basis for this than he could get by trying to red the current AWWW  
> with semantic web-colored glasses.   He, as , would really like to  
> have an ontology for the things the AWWW document talks about, and  
> a formal definition of the semantics of things like HTTP fetches,  
> hash, etc.
>
> At the same time, Anne van Kesteren  has been suggesting that the  
> HTTP spec doesn't have a very clear semantics.   He asks, for  
> example, what happens if a server sends two different content-type  
> headers, for example?  There are no HTTP validators, ad the  
> significance of it is not obvious.  This problem could also be  
> helped partially by some semantics  expressed more explicitly.
>
> 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.
>
> This is relevant to the Tabulator project, as Tabulator does this,  
> and uses the conclusions from HTTP transactions to (for example)  
> select user interface operations to offer the user, and to generate  
> warning messages about inappropriate behavior.
>
> 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.
>
> Tim
>
> PS:
>