- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:58:47 -0800
- To: "'Mahan Michael \(NRC/Boston\)'" <michael.mahan@nokia.com>, "'ext Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)'" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: "'David Booth'" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
My big problem so far, and I haven't been able to wade through all the emails to figure it out, is that I can't figure out what knowledge is allowed to be in scope for non a priori. For example, GETting a web page requires a knowledge of HTTP, TCP/IP, URIs. So is it knowledge of the format of the representation? Ah, but if I'm a browser, I certainly have to "know" what HTML, JPEG, GIF, etc. are in order to render them properly. My guess is that any discussion around a priori has to focus on what knowledge classifies as a priori, and what doesn't. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Mahan Michael (NRC/Boston) > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:08 PM > To: ext Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Assaf Arkin; David Orchard; Hugo > Haas > Cc: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org; Mark Baker > Subject: Re: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web > Services Glossary > ) > > > > Roger, > > I believe 'a priori' and 'non a priori' are terms from the > domain of agents > and semantic web. 'Non a priori' means 'without prior > knowledge' and is used > to describe the property of an SW agent that can 'understand' what any > deployed and ontologically described service does/means and > how to invoke > it, at runtime. In the context of AR023.7.1, this nuance is > lost and so I > would recommend making the word change in 23.7.1 to 'prior' and not > bothering with the glossary. > > Mike Mahan, Nokia > > > On 2/26/03 3:51 PM, "ext Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" > <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> wrote: > > > > > Geez, the WHOLE point of this is interpreting the phrase used in the > > charter and requirements in order to answer a formal issue. > The issue > > is what is meant when the phrase is used in the charter, and more or > > less copied into the requirements -- not what the phrase > means in some > > general sense. Is there any way we can found out who wrote > the #$%%^# > > thing and ask what the heck they had in mind? > > > > I remind you that even if we are thinking of the charter as > governing > > law, the courts consider the intention of the legislative body when > > interpreting what a law means. We don't exactly have to go > back to the > > Federalist Papers to do this. > > > > The change log of the Requirements Doc says something about > "add Mark > > B's a priori requirement ...". Does Mark Baker have something to do > > with the use of this phrase? Mark Baker, in a posting > 2/26, seems to > > say that he agrees that the term "prior" should replace "a priori". > > > > Is there anyone who REALLY wants and cares about the use of > "a priori" > > as opposed to "prior" in the charter and the requirements? > If not, can > > we possibly declare this argument to be moot? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:02 PM > > To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); David Orchard; Hugo Haas > > Cc: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org > > Subject: RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web > Services Glossary > > ) > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > >> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:50 AM > >> To: David Orchard; Hugo Haas > >> Cc: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org > >> Subject: RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web Services > >> Glossary > >> ) > >> > >> > >> > >> I think that the term "a priori" really only has one > rigorous meaning, > > > >> and that is (as posted by Ugo 2/19): > >> > >> A priori: relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident > >> propositions. > > > > That's one definition, but all the ones I've read [1] seem > to imply that > > a priori knowledge is one that is not based on facts, such as > > self-evident, intuitive or whatever reasoning you had and want to > > validate. > > > > So a use case would go like that: > > > > - I think this service will give me the time of day (a priori) > > - I send a request, get a response, validate/invalidate my > assumption > > > > So, to further confuse the reader, if I had a definition of > the service > > that I want to interact with, I would say that's a priori knowledge. > > It's not self evident or intuitive, but it's reasoning based on the > > service definition. It's not validated. > > > > I send a request, get a response, validate my assumption > based on that > > response and now my knowledge is no longer a priori. > > > > On the other hand, if I have an end-point with no idea what it does, > > send a message and get some response back, then I learn > what the service > > does without a priori knowledge. (End-point is considered prior > > knowledge in this > > context) > > > > In other words, using a WSDL definition to interact with a > service is a > > priori knowledge, but just sending some empty message and getting a > > response is no a priori knowledge with prior knowledge. > > > > And before REST advocates interject, the same holds true > for protocol > > listed in the URL. Assuming that a URL starting with http: > implies an > > HTTP server at that end is a priori knowledge. We validate > it by sending > > an HTTP request and seeing whether we get any HTTP response or some > > other response (no HTTP server here, go away!) or no > response (no TCP > > server here, have a nice day). > > > > arkin > > > > [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=a+priori&r=3 > > > >> > >> However, as David has pointed out, the objective here is really to > >> deal with the issue that has been raised. We are, I believe, > >> suggesting that we don't really have to define the term in the > >> Glossary if we don't intend to use it in the architecture document, > >> but we do have to deal with the issue. > >> > >> I think that the underlying assumption here, at least in > my mind and I > > > >> think in a number of others, is that the term was used somewhat > >> carelessly in the charter and that whoever wrote it really meant > >> "prior". The statement is much easier to understand if one > >> substitutes "prior" for "a priori", and it seems to have a real > >> function that way. That is, if we interpret it in this way we think > >> that we are being consistent with, and responding to, the intended > >> meaning of the charter. I think that if we get embroiled > in a lengthy > >> discussion of the term "a priori" we will, in fact, not be > responding > >> to the intent of the charter. > >> > >> At the very least, if we answer the issue in this way it > puts the ball > > > >> in the other court. That is, if the framers of the charter REALLY > >> meant something other than "prior" they can tell us so, > since we have > >> made it very clear that this is our best understanding of what they > >> meant at this moment. > >> > >> If we take this path, however, I think we definitely do NOT want to > >> put a definition of "a priori" into the glossary that says it is > >> equivalent to "prior". That would simply be propagating confusion. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:47 AM > >> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); 'Hugo Haas' > >> Cc: 'David Booth'; www-ws-arch@w3.org > >> Subject: RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web Services > >> Glossary > >> ) > >> > >> > >> I dunno. I think that the term "A priori" should be defined in a > >> rigorous way. Can somebody summarize the differences between the > >> definitions that have been championed? > >> > >> Dave > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org > >>> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > >>> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:37 AM > >>> To: Hugo Haas > >>> Cc: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org > >>> Subject: RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web > >>> Services Glossary > >>> ) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Well, the suggestion was NOT to put anything in the glossary for > >>> this term and to use the verbiage below as a response to > the issue. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure if we have anything explicit in the > requirements about > >>> supporting late binding, but it seems to me that a number > of people > >>> on > >> > >>> the WG consider this important and that this was the sense of the > >>> statement in the charter. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:34 AM > >>> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > >>> Cc: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org > >>> Subject: Re: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web Services > >>> Glossary > >>> ) > >>> > >>> > >>> * Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com> > >>> [2003-02-24 10:41-0600] > >>>> OK, we've kicked this term around enough so that it seems > >>> pretty clear > >>> > >>>> that it is not going to be a quick kill to get consensus on > >>> a general > >>>> definition, and I think David is absolutely correct: we need to > >>>> address the issue itself, but not necessarily this term as > >>> a general > >>>> concept. > >>>> > >>>> So I suggest something along the following resolution to resolve > >>>> the > >>>> issue: > >>>> > >>>> "The WG is not currently using the term "a priori > >>> information" in the > >>>> reference architecture, so we do not feel a need to come to an > >>>> agreement about the meaning of the term in general. In the > >>> specific > >>>> context in which it is used in the group charter, we > >>> understand it to > >>>> mean "prior information". We interpret this as a > >>> requirement that the > >>> > >>>> architecture support late binding." > >>> > >>> I am happy to put such a statement in the glossary. > However, I think > > > >>> that we should add something (or a placeholder) in the WSA to talk > >>> about it. Maybe just to say what you are saying here. > >>> > >>> However, I was wondering if we had actually a requirement > about this > > > >>> before saying "We interpret this as a requirement that the > >>> architecture support late binding." > >>> > >>> AC004 and AR004.2 read[1]: > >>> > >>> | AC004 > >>> | does not preclude any programming model. > >>> | > >>> | + AR004.2 is comprised of loosely-coupled > components and > >>> their > >>> | interrelationships. > >>> > >>> I think that this is the one that has been discussed when > there were > > > >>> late binding discussions, but I don't think that it explicitely > >>> calls out for it. Maybe we are missing a requirement then. > >>> > >>> Or have I missed something in the requirements document? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Hugo > >>> > >>> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20021114#AC004 > >>> -- > >>> Hugo Haas - W3C > >>> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 01:02:04 UTC