[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jonathan@openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) writes:
>Actually a significant characteristic of the SW is that it involves
>technical terms like "non-monotonic reasoning" and "open world
>assumption" which is specifically intended to deal with 404 errors. In
>OWL there is a running joke regarding the "Ontology not found" error
>and how its presence changes how people have traditionally dealt with
>what had been monolithic ontologies.
Yes, and I find them very poor substitutes for the immediacy of a 404.
The problem isn't just "file not found" - it's that the whole set of
issues currently under discussion aren't subject to the same kind of
binary it's here/it ain't that we find with files and even programs on
web servers.
I really wish the URI folks would show some humility that perhaps their
creation has the same ambiguities which plague systems of identifiers
generally rather than argue that the success of the original Web makes
the Semantic Web somehow immune.
If it wasn't at the W3C, and didn't claim to have learned from (and be
the descendant of!) the original Web, I can't say I'd care in the
slightest.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
