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

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:56:17 +0100
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5beiu8xbb2.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[jumping in after a long absence, apologies if I misunderstand any of
the context]

'artefact' is not enough:  the house my sister built herself last year
is eminently artefactual, but it's not a GR.

'intent' is not enough either: my sister was full of intent, the
intent was to build that house and she built that house as the object
of her intention and directly as a result of that intent.

But (and here I come back close to my previously-stated conviction
that FRBR has a crucial role to play in resolving this question),
perhaps "intent to communicate" _is_ sufficient. . .

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFKH+mBkjnJixAXWBoRAmqHAJwIGP25znZkcyfVisjOQoVMdQM6agCdGKr7
xUIYP60B0s3b+p1DWjvZ8vY=
=6mSr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 13:57:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 May 2009 13:57:02 GMT