RE: on documents and terms [was: RE: [WNET] new proposal WN URIsand related issues]

On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 01:54 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> Thanks for the very helpful explanations, and sorry it's taken a while
> to respond.  
> 
> When the WebArch is unclear (or even conflicting), readers have no
> choice but to guess the TAG's intent.

What I'm trying to explain is that the TAG's position isn't
conflicting nor unclear; it just says less than people
in this group have claimed.

>  You've given one interpretation,
> which sounds like it boils down to:
> 
> 	- Any resource r is an "information resource" if:
> 
> 		a. there exists a URI that returns a 
> 		2xx status when dereferenced; and
>
> 		b. r is not a dog, person or physical book.
> 
> 		c. the owner of that URI claims that the
> 		the URI identifies r; and

I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. Perhaps
I should just stop. The first condition is sufficient.

If it looks like I'm trying to say anything more than
what the TAG has published, I really should just stop.
I'm really, really trying not to.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E