- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:54:47 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
David Booth writes: > Review of: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/ > - As pointed out by multiple people, the document strays > into the murky tar pit of talking about the "meaning" of > a URI. This is a major tactical error. It is unnecessary, > and IMO reflects a persistent misunderstanding of semantic web > architecture (which never should have been called "semantic" > in the first place, as that term has led to no end of confusion > and misconception). Regarding "meaning" the rule should be > simple: DON'T GO THERE. But the document has to use _some_ word in the place it currently uses 'meaning', doesn't it? Seems to me _whatever_ word is used will raise hackles in some quarters, so the present approach, which uses it and then (in section 7) explicitly foregrounds the difficulties attendent on doing so, is the best that can be done. > - The document invents cumbersome terminology > in an effort to be precise, rather than using well-established > existing terms and clarifying those terms where necessary. > This makes the document hard to read. I think this is a judgement call, and I think trying to start, in the areas closest to the difficulties we've had with the httpRange-14 discussion, with intentionally verbose formulations that demand to be understood only per the explicit definitions provided, is the right thing to do. The problem with the well-established terms is that virtually all of them are vulnerable to what we might call spurious agreement -- every reader believes they understand them, but their understandings are not consistent with one anothers'. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 20:55:36 UTC