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

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:10:27 -0500
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A10E3093-BC56-474A-A99E-FEBD0B2C4EF0@ihmc.us>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

>
> 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.

Philosophy, not English. Essential here means, it wouldn't be the same  
thing if this were changed.

> The essence of a document is its content.

Whoa. Tell that to the intelligence community or any good lawyer. It  
may be just as important to know who created it, what its secrecy  
level is, etc. etc. Documents are objects with many properties as well  
as their content.

Pat

>
>> 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)
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 02:11:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 17 June 2009 02:11:51 GMT