- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:53:59 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Pat Hayes' <phayes@ihmc.us>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, 'Jonathan Rees' <jar@creativecommons.org>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
[Off list] FWIW, I wasn't able to follow Pat's point either, but I'd like to understand it, so if you and Pat don't mind copying me on your correspondence I would be interested. Thanks, David Booth On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 03:11 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Thanks Larry. I wish I could talk with such clarity. > > I want to take the discussion with Pat a bit further, but will do so > off-list. (Tomorrow, Pat -- I need to mull it over a bit.) > > I initially joined the thread to say this: The HTTP spec, with Roy's > proposed new 303 text, accommodates all Semantic Web use cases I can > think of. Including using HTTP URIs to denote people. It's good to see > httpRange-14 slowly "trickle down" into the specs. > > Cheers, > Richard > > > On 14 Jul 2009, at 21:46, Larry Masinter wrote: > > > This conversation is filling my mailbox. Some general > > observations: > > > > (Pat, your arguments are laced with ad hominem, which makes reading > > the dialog unpleasant. I don't think Richard is being > > silly, intellectually dishonest, bloody arrogant, or any of the > > other terms you've used, please refrain.) > > > > It's the nature of standards discussions that people speak > > their point of view; doing so isn't arrogant. > > > > It is the nature of technical specifications that it is frequently > > necessary to take normal English words in particular technical > > way; it is not intellectually dishonest to do so. > > > > It is good practice for technical specifications in standards > > groups to say as little as possible in order to meet the > > needs of interoperability and the purpose for which the > > specification is being written. > > > > It is not necessary or even possible for a technical specification > > to answer questions that may be fundamental for applications > > that are outside of its scope. It is common, reasonable, > > and traditional for standards specifications to "not answer" > > questions because answering the question isn't necessary > > for the purpose for which the standard was written. > > > > It isn't necessary for the proper functioning of the web and > > to accomplish interoperability of web clients and servers > > to agree on how to use HTTP URIs and the HTTP protocol -- > > for that purpose, it isn't necessary to answer the question > > of whether a HTTP URI can identify a person. > > > > It may be necessary to answer the question in a technical > > specification for the semantic web and in the RDF > > specification -- but the answer more likely > > belong in those specifications and not in the > > IETF HTTP specification. > > > > It may be necessary for the IETF HTTP specification > > be edited in a way that made it clear that it didn't > > contain the answer to this question, but I'm not > > sure where to draw the line of describing things > > it doesn't answer. > > > > It's easy to imagine a system in which a URI is used > > to identify a person for the purpose of that system. > > But I can't see how IETF, W3C, or continued discussion > > on any of our mailing lists are going to converge > > any time soon on answers to the philosophical questions > > that have been with us for millennia. What is it > > that "Pat Hayes" identifies, anyway? Can I use > > mailto:phayes@ihmc.us as a URI to identify you? > > Well, that's a question outside of the "mailto:" > > URI spec, I think. > > > > Perhaps there needs to be a better way of distinguishing > > the statements "this specification does not limit the scope > > of applicability" and "this specification applies in all > > circumstances". > > > > If you had some better way of phrasing it so that it would > > be clear the former was meant rather than the latter, I > > think that would be helpful. > > > > The fact that something "does matter" -- to you, to the > > RDF community, to the W3C, to the world at large -- > > does not mean that it is appropriate to "matter" in > > the context of the HTTP spec. > > > > It is an important design principle for developing > > specifications to keep specifications orthogonal: for the purposes > > of the HTTP protocol, it does not matter what resources > > are exactly. For the purpose of resource identification, it should > > not matter what the protocol is; tying semantic web > > interpretation to a particular error code in the HTTP > > protocol seems like bad design to me. > > > > The idea that the HTTP working group should care about the > > semantic web and change its specification to meet some > > semantic web requirement for use of HTTP URIs in semantic > > web applications -- well, that raises several red flags > > for me, that we're building specifications that are not > > sufficiently orthogonal that things that *shouldn't* matter > > are taken as important questions that *must* be answered. > > > > The HTTP specification is *not* about what a "resource" is. > > It *is* about how to use and implement the HTTP protocol. > > > > There continues to be some confusion in the discussion between > > "URI" and "HTTP URI" that I find disturbing and confusing, because > > I think sometimes statements about one are attributed to the > > other. Not all URIs are HTTP URIs. Please try to be more careful. > > > > Regards, > > > > Larry > > -- > > http://larry.masinter.net > > > > > > > > > > -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 14:54:37 UTC