W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: "information resource"

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:41:47 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1D0B@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <skw@hp.com>, <public-webarch-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <fielding@gbiv.com>, <timbl@w3.org>


Thanks Stuart. I find the proposed changes acceptable.

Cheers,

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
> Sent: 20 September, 2004 15:52
> To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); Tim
> Berners-Lee
> Subject: Re: "information resource"
> 
> 
> I'd like make the following proposal which I hope will 
> address Patrick's 
> comment [1] and be acceptable to other parties with an interest in 
> Patrick's comment.
> 
> 1) Replace all occurences of the noun phrase "information 
> resource" with 
> the noun phrase "web resource".
> 
> 2) Replace the defining sentence for the noun phrase "information 
> resource" (section 3.1 1st para, 1st sentence) :
> 
>   "The term Information Resource refers to resources that convey 
> information. Any resource that has a representation is an information 
> resource."
> 
> with
> 
>   "The term Web Resource is applicable to resources for which web 
> acesssible representations are available and/or which may be 
> interacted 
> with through an exchange of representations."
> 
> 3) [Optional]  Consider adding a nearby sentence: "Colloquially, Web 
> Resources are said to be "on-the-web"."
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Stuart Williams
> --
> [1]  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> 04JulSep/0047.html
> 
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> >
> > I agree with the core of Patrick's argument, excerpted below, with
> > the minor exception that some web resources are representation sinks
> > that have no difficulty processing information that is sent to them,
> > even though they don't have representations of their own.  Those are
> > significant to the web machinery, but don't participate in the
> > information retrieval (hypertext) Web.
> >
> > Maybe we need to distinguish resources from web resources and from
> > hypertext resources?  Or maybe the architecture just 
> doesn't care, and
> > we can go back to describing how it works instead of how it might
> > be modeled in an abstract but artificial way.
> >
> > ....Roy
> >
> > On Sep 9, 2004, at 2:00 AM, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But the resolution of that confusion need not posit any claims or
> >> constraints about the inherent nature of the resource itself, only
> >> about the accessibility of representations of that resource.
> >>
> >> I.e.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >>
> >> "resource"         Anything that can be referred to, 
> named, described,
> >>                    talked about, etc.
> >>
> >> "web resource"     A resource which has web accessible 
> representations
> >>                    (i.e. is significant to the web machinery).
> >>                    "web resource" is a subclass of "resource".
> >>
> >> "representation"   An octet stream (entity) returned by a 
> server which
> >>                    reflects the state of a resource. A 
> representation is
> >>                    also a resource, which can be denoted 
> by a distinct
> >>                    URI. A representation of a 
> representation (resource)
> >>                    corresponds to a bit-equal copy of itself.
> >>                    "representation" is a subclass of "web 
> resource".
> >>
> >> -- 
> >>
> >> IMO, the above three definitions should be sufficient to 
> clarify the
> >> confusion between what a resource is and what resources 
> are relevant to
> >> the web and why,  and how representations (the "atomic" 
> resources of
> >> the web) relate to the broader set of web resources -- 
> many of which
> >> correspond to abstract "bodies of information" such as web pages.
> >>
> >> Nowhere above is it necessary to say anything about the 
> inherent nature
> >> of resources or of web resources, or to posit any kind of class of
> >> "information resources" in order to describe the behavior and 
> >> architecture
> >> of web servers and clients (aside from the atomic, binary nature of
> >> representations).
> >
> >
> > On Sep 9, 2004, at 3:51 AM, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My explicit proposal would be to replace the words "information 
> >> resource"
> >> with either "web resource" or "web accessible resource" which IMO
> >> would coincide more precisely with the actual definition and not
> >> potentially imply any position relating to httpRange-14.
> >>
> > ...
> >
> >> Anything can be a resource. I am opposed to any constraints by
> >> the web architecture on the nature of resources denoted by URIs and
> >> for which representations are made web accessible.
> >>
> >> My view, in a nutshell:
> >>
> >> Anything can be a resource.
> >> Any resource can be denoted by a URI.
> >> Any resource can have web accessible representations.
> >> A web resource is a resource with web accessible representations.
> >> A representation is a resource.
> >> A representation can be denoted by a distinct URI.
> >> A representation is the atomic primitive of the web.
> >> A representation corresponds to a binary data stream.
> >> The representation of a representation is a bit-equal copy 
> of itself.
> >>
> >> The web architecture faciliates interaction with 
> representations of 
> >> resources.
> >> The semantic web architecture facilitates interaction with 
> >> descriptions of resources.
> >> The intersection of the web and semantic web architectures are a 
> >> shared set of URIs.
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 08:42:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:47 UTC