Re: removing constraints on 'resource' [024-identity]

On May 25, 2004, at 1:31 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> OLD
>     Resource
>        Anything that has been named or described can be a resource.
...

> NEW
>    Resource
>        This document doesn't limit the scope of what might be a
>        'resource'; rather, the term 'resource' is used for whatever it
>        is that a Uniform Resource Identifier identifies;
...

I do *not* support the change away from "has been."  There is too much 
room for argument without practical import as to what might or might 
not be a resource, but on the other hand if it already has been named 
or described, there's not doubt at all that it could be a resource.

BTW, Larry's wording does a much better job of describing how I think 
about resources and how I describe them to people than the existing 
draft wording.  Not that I think that the current wording is wrong or 
that they are inconsistent; I just think Larry's is clearer and 
friendlier and less likely to cause people to wrinkle their foreheads 
and think "WTF?" -Tim