W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:01:21 -0400
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D771391-1460-4B72-9030-6ECA9C7D3506@w3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>

On 2009-06 -16, at 12:28, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Rees<jar@creativecommons.org 
> > wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:47 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>  
>> wrote:
>>> I think I may understand phlogiston better than "intent" :) so I'm  
>>> not
>>> very hot on trying to capture "intent".  I'll get to an alternate
>>> suggestion in a moment, but first a brief recap.
>>
>> How about if we call it "phlogiston" then.
>
> I think I understand how this works now: The puzzle is, if all of an
> IR's essential characteristics can be conveyed in a message, then how
> can two IRs differ in any way other than in their representations?
>
> Well, to induce the puzzle, you need two assumptions:
> (1) that the message in question (the converyor) is one of the IR's
> representations, as opposed to some other message,
> (2) that a characteristic informative enough to differentiate IRs
> having the same representations - "phlogiston" - must be an essential
> one.

Is this a counter example:  Two different IRs where the representation  
you get is identical:

A version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wsc-ui-20090226/

The latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsc-ui/

> Relax either assumption, and now Tim's definition of generic resource
> becomes consistent with AWWW's definition of information resource.

Good.


> For example, in the time sheet example, the difference between the two
> resources - namely, whose time sheet it is - might not be an essential
> characteristic.

I don't thing that drilling into the English word "essential" is  
useful any further.
The essence of a document is its content.

> Important, perhaps; interesting, perhaps;
> consequential, perhaps; but not essential.
>
> Or else the fact of ownership can be conveyed in some message
> unrelated to the time sheet's representations. This seems less likely
> to me.
>

It happens -- we often for example attach a bunch of diagrams to a  
message,
and the significance of them is only conveyed in the cover note.
"Here are my timesheets -- can you sign them?"
The timesheet gets a cid: URI in the email as an attachent.
Another person's timesheet could be identical.

> Jonathan   (don't imagine I'm being serious)
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 19:01:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 June 2009 19:01:51 GMT