Great list of papers.<p>I've read five of of the seven papers on the list. The two I haven't read are Cerf and Kahn's, and Berner-Lee's.<p>Turing's paper on computability was particularly hard to follow, for me, because he used these gothic-font upper-chase characters to name all sorts of objects, and all those characters looked kinda the same to me! I had to use auxiliary materials to be able to make my way through the paper. Today, I would recommend reading it with Charles Petzold's easy-to-follow book on the paper: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Turing-Through-Historic-Computability/dp/0470229055" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Turing-Through-Historic-Com...</a><p>Cook's paper on NP-completeness was also hard to follow (again, for me). As with Turing's paper, I had to use auxiliary materials to make my way. Today, I would recommend reading instead an introductory book on computational complexity that works through Cook's proof.<p>Shannon's paper is a work of art, clearly articulated and beautifully written. It's just not casual reading, to put it mildly.<p>Brin and Page's paper, and Codd's paper, are not hard to follow, at least as I remember them, but understanding Brin and Page's work requires some knowledge of Linear Algebra.<p>Thank you for sharing this on HN.