- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:22:18 -0700
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
I added a new use case http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTTPURIUseCases#N.29_Reconciling_incompatible_uses_.28polysemy.29 to the use case list and to the matrix http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTTPURIUseCaseMatrix > Thanks to Larry Masinter for this one. I have no doubt distorted the > use case description in trying to make it fit in with the comparison > framework, so he is not to blame for any deficiencies in what is > written. Also the way I have filled in the matrix is somewhat > arbitrary, and I welcome arguments for changing its matrix entries. I wasn't arguing for a new use case, but for a coherent perspective for analysis. So the use case is fine, but its lack wasn't the problem. There are two branches of analysis: using semantics and knowledge representation, and using communication theory. Both of these are internally coherent. However, mixing them is, in general, not coherent . If you start out talking about identification or denotation or semantics or meaning, then fine, but there's really no place in a description of semantics for a "protocol" (UDDP), since a protocol is an operation, computational behavior whose behavior depends on the operation of the network, and not a mathematical function. If you start out talking about protocols and messages and transmission of representations of state, then switching to a semantic theory leaves all of the context out. (I think http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/AnotherSpin doesn't help and can't, it makes several unwarranted assumptions and doesn't even touch the temporal elements.)
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:22:50 UTC