W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: proposed change to a spec

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:57:46 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTin4qEOD0edoumNVWcKw6b3FV9cwoe2JsBsrDTmL@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> For example, Ruttenberg's Scylla seems a perfectly fine model for IRs.
>> Maybe some IRs are Aristotelian abstractions, but other IRs might be
>> other things. You would have to argue that the Scylla cannot be the
>> right model, for some reason.
> pointer?


Alan Ruttenberg's position, that certain kinds of things might be
licensed (by a standing committee, perhaps) to call themselves
'information resources', but that there is no principle that unites
all such kinds. I call this design point "Ruttenberg's Scylla". I
neither agree nor disagree with it, but my switch to talking about
axioms/requirements rather than 'vitalism' or ontology was an
acknowledgment that he might be right.

As for the "all information is description" thing... I'm touchy
because I'm fresh off of a comments spat on my blog on this subject.
It always smells like an attempt to snuff httpRange-14 by arguing that
everything has a representation (sensu webarch) because representation
(sensu hunoz) and description are the same thing. You probably know
what I think of that argument by now.

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 01:58:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:09 UTC