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

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:31:39 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0905290731m3fe6a34cn462ef774db84f542@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> -----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.

Absolutely. I'm not sure why anyone would think either is enough.
Rather I suggest that intent is one element of the definition. Seems
having a little more in definitions would get 'round Pat's strange
cases such as light bulbs that are broken.

> 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. . .

FRBR's a good start. It needs, IMO, a little massaging to put it in to
a formal framework. I don't think intent to communicate will be enough
either, btw. There may need to be other parts of the definition, such
as being about something. Not that aboutness is particularly easy to
define either, but I think it's going to be another one of the
necessary primitives.

-Alan

>
> 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 14:32:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 May 2009 14:32:38 GMT