Lists Home |
Date Index |
Joshua Allen wrote:
> stacked up against that (third) view. In any case you are going to
> articulate your view because I see no "FIRE".
I hope you are not once again confusing your local perspective with the
global one. I think that many people see the problem exactly as I have
stated it. I think that many people have understood the many clear
examples I've put forth of why it's crass to overload http: identifiers
like this. If *you* don't, it could mean that you aren't listening
carefully enough, or are incapable of seeing reason. It really doesn't
matter what it means, though, since you aren't the person I have to
I guess it comes down to this: I see peaceful coexistence of REST and the
Semantic Web. I also _firmly_ believe the Semantic Web should be based on
the current Web. Call that a local perspective, but it is a perspective
shared by some but not all people who are spending time working on "Semantic
Web" sorts of problems.
> actual fire. In any case no major "Semantic Web" player advocates
Gee, what would it take for me to become a big-time "semantic web
playa"? Silly I'd have thought that one could know who the players are
by their fruits. But I don't see any fruits other then a few
locally-contextual proofs-of-concept, and the people who think HTTP
extends to "infinity and beyond".
I don't mean to imply that you as a person are not a "major player" but
since you are using your microsoft.com email, I will assume that you are
speaking in your capacity as an employee of Microsoft. Certainly the
"Semantic Web" (capitalized) has been a project led by TimBLs and the W3C.
The RDFCore and WebOnt WGs, have participation from a _wide_ variety of
folks, both academic and industry, large and small. Among companies the size
of Microsoft, participation includes: IBM, Sun, HP, Philips, Lucent.
Microsoft has been notably missing. Why not join? If it is not a worthwhile
activity then why say that x, y or z view is important to the SW? Who would
In any case, what I meant to say was that the position you've taken is not
one that is dealt with, or much discussed, among the SW community.
Now all the activities of the SW WGs are totally out in public so anyone is
free to scour the emails, as well as those from daml.org, www-rdf-interest,
www-rdf-logic, and rdfig.xmlhack.com . You will see that I am correct about
this _specific issue_ not being a major topic of conversation -- although
some related issues are discussed.
And on the other hand, I freely admit that the "range of http" issue has
been one of great contention and to be perfectly honest, although I am
leaning more and more toward Fielding's position, I am not totally convinced
one way or the other, and so, yes, if you were able to come up with a
persuasive argument, I really would be willing to listen. Instead, you seem
to be saying the same thing over and over.
As for most of the public. I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't care
what this argument is about. I don't think there really _is_ a "global
speaking _only_ for myself i.e. locally