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

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:25:05 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0905291025y4dcc39b2p71df6c847a26ae73@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 17:25:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:07 UTC