- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:25:05 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > My, er, intent was that this is a necessary, not sufficient, condition. I > don't think we need a sufficient condition for anything on the Web that > can't be stated in terms of XXTP responses and codes. That's fine, but then "on the web" becomes a necessary condition. The current exercise is to reverse engineer "generic resource" as described by Tim, and it clearly includes things that are not "on the web". At various points I have had your "accessible" in my pictures, because it's a pretty clear idea, but it is just a different kind of entity, as far as I can tell. To be accessible is to be a physical thing, and a generic-resource isn't (again, as far as I can tell - it's all so mushy I still haven't found a place to stand). They're much more like colors or contracts than they are like disk drives. Jonathan
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 17:25:43 UTC