W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Formally specifying HTTP GET operations

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 27 Nov 2002 08:31:11 -0600
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1038407472.5193.3113.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 08:04, Jim Hendler wrote:
> At 8:12 AM -0500 11/27/02, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >There are several points in which we desire to formally specify an HTTP GET
> >operation. When we wish to assert the 'contents' of a URI, we wish to assert
> >the contents of an RDF document obtained when dereferencing the URI. This
> >exposes the need to formally define the HTTP GET operation itself.
> >
> >[snip]
> >Formally defining an HTTP GET operation might be out of the scope of OWL,
> >but hopefully this description will demonstrate some of the issues in
> >defining OWL entailments that cross HTTP GET operations.
> >
> >Jonathan
> I am afraid that I agree with Jonathan that this is likely out of 
> scope for the WG.

Are you saying that this part of peter's proposal for 5.8
is out of scope?

4/ OWL can use XML Schema non-list simple types defined at the top
   level of an XML Schema document and given a name, by using the URI
   reference constructed from the URI of the document and the local name
   the simple type.

I think there is a case for saying that is out of scope, but
I'm not sure what you're saying.

This point 4/ can't be specified, to my satisfaction, without
*some* formalization of HTTP GET.

I suggested[7Nov] formalizing it as part of the interpretation
structure. PatH agreed[19Nov] that could work.




Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 09:31:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:38 UTC