W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2004

RE: "information resource"

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:24:06 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADD4E@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <skw@hp.com>
Cc: <public-webarch-comments@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
> Sent: 19 October, 2004 16:35
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "information resource"
> 
> 
> Hello Patrick,
> 
> The TAG discussed your comment some more on our 18th October 
> telcon. We 
> have decided to retain the wording that we crafted during our F2F 
> meeting in Basel, as is. You will find it in place in the current 
> editors draft available at [1]. 
> 
> Speaking personnally, it seems evident from recent exchanges that you 
> understood and accepted the intent of the Basel definiton of the term 
> "information resource". 

I did not understand it based solely on the new text itself. I suspected
that one interpretation was probably meant by the new text, but was
not sure, and could easily see as valid an alternate, incompatible, 
interpretation.

It was only after extensive discussion about the new text that I became
satisfied that a particular interpretation was indeed intended.

The fact that the text remains unchanged, means that the potential for
confusion remains.

> You have asked us to express that 
> more directly, 
> and we have declined. Nevertheless I believe that you and 
> others clearly 
> understand the intent of  definition (that an information 
> resource is a 
> body of information that can be wholly conveyed in a message). 

But this is not due to the new text alone. It has not been shown
that the new text unambiguously reflects the intended meaning.
If it did, then there would not have been the subsequent discusssion
and I would not be typing this text at this very moment.

> I hope 
> that you will regard that as progress.

I see progress made in the new definition of "information resource" per

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#id-resources

when compared to its previous definition per

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040928/#information-resource 

I do not, I'm sorry, consider that rejection of my request to refine
the new text to clarify the intended meaning of words such as "convey"
and "characteristic" by revision of the defining text to be progress, 
since lack of any change cannot constitute progress.

The clarifications made in online discussions will not be part of AWWW.
Therefore, having no change to the text which initiated those discussions,
means that the progress made in those discussions is not reflected in
AWWW, and therefore, no actual progress can be said to have been made
insofar as that particular text is concerned.

I am not satisfied with this outcome, but I also do not intend to consume
more of my own time in this matter. My concerns are a matter of public
record. I leave it to the TAG to decide whether to reflect any of the
actual progress made in online discussions in the actual text of AWWW,
or to leave the issue unresolved. 

Regards,

Patrick



> Best regards
> 
> Stuart
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#id-resources
> 
> Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> 
> >Hello Patrick,
> >
> >We'll obviously consider your response when we next meet.
> >
> >One observation with respect my understanding of our intent in the
> >wording that proposed, your original comment and the 
> following paragraph
> >from your proposed replacement.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>The city of Paris, France is an example of a resource which 
> >>is not an information resource. While information about the 
> >>city of Paris may be conveyed in one or more representations, 
> >>the city of Paris does not itself constitute a body of 
> >>information, and therefore any web accessible representation 
> >>of the city of Paris will inevitably constitute only an 
> >>approximation or description of that resource, rather than 
> >>conveying information content inherent in the resource 
> >>itself. And if the city of Paris is denoted by the URI 
> >><http://example.com/cities/paris> and a representation of the 
> >>city of Paris is accessible via that URI, then the city of 
> >>Paris would be an example of a web resource, even though it 
> >>is not an example of an information resource.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >At least in part you were concerned about there being implicit
> >resolution of the httpRange-14 issue, not in what we had 
> actually said
> >but in what you thought might be read into the text [1]. What we are
> >seeking to do here is to provide definitions of the terms without
> >resolving, in either direction, the question of whether it 
> is possible
> >to distinguish between "information resources", "web resources",
> >"non-info resources" and "non-web resources" by inspection of one (or
> >more) of their associated URI. 
> >
> >I think that the patricular URI used in the para above prejudices
> >resolution of httpRange-14 in the opposite direction - 
> certainly there
> >are some that would take the first premise of the sentence beginning
> >"And if the city of Paris is denoted by the URI
> ><http://example.com/cities/paris>..." as false in which case the
> >consequent says nothing.
> >
> >So for definitional purposes I would prefer that we defined 
> these terms
> >without introducing particular URI forms, even as examplars.
> >
> >Stuart
> >--
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org 
> >>[mailto:public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> >>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> >>Sent: 12 October 2004 10:12
> >>To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> >>Subject: RE: "information resource"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
> >>>Sent: 11 October, 2004 16:43
> >>>To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); "public- 
> >>>webarch-comments"@w3.org
> >>>Subject: Re: "information resource"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Patrick,
> >>>
> >>>Further to our recent exchanges and my earlier proposal to replace
> >>>      
> >>>
> >the 
> >  
> >
> >>>term "Information Resource" with the term "Web Resource", 
> at our F2F
> >>>      
> >>>
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>tin Basel this week, the TAG spend a considerable time discussion
> >>>      
> >>>
> >the 
> >  
> >
> >>>definition of "Information Resources". We developed new 
> definitional
> >>>      
> >>>
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>text which the TAG reached concensus on. This text now appears at
> >>>      
> >>>
> >the 
> >  
> >
> >>>beginning of Section 2.2 [1] and is quoted below.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>In short, the new text does not address my concerns. 
> >>
> >>Specific comments and a proposed alternate text offered below. 
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>><quote>
> >>>2.2. URI/Resource Relationships
> >>>
> >>>By design a URI identifies one resource. We do not limit 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>the scope of 
> >>    
> >>
> >>>what might be a resource. The term "resource" is used in a general 
> >>>sense for whatever might be identified by a URI. It is 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>conventional on 
> >>    
> >>
> >>>the hypertext web to describe web pages, images, product catalogs, 
> >>>etc.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Which should be expected, because the interchange of 
> >>information is arguably the key purpose of the hypertext web. Fine.
> >>
> >>But "the hypertext web" != "the web". So there's a bit of (possibly
> >>unintended) spin there, I think.
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>as
> >>>"resources". The distinguishing characteristic of these 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>resources is 
> >>    
> >>
> >>>that all of their essential characteristics can be conveyed in a 
> >>>message. We identify this set as "information resources".
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Hmmm... I believe I can convey "all of the essential 
> characteristics" 
> >>of a particular model of mobile phone in a message. Likewise, 
> >>for the planet Venus, the concept of slightly watery fudge 
> >>pudding, etc.
> >>
> >>Also, given a particular "document", e.g. describing the city 
> >>of Paris, I would not really consider the content of the 
> >>document itself to fully subsume all of its "essential 
> >>characteristics". 
> >>Rather, I would consider "characteristics" to (also) include 
> >>metadata about  the document, such as the creator, last 
> >>modified date, topical categorizations, etc. which may not be 
> >>included in every, or any, representation of that resource.
> >>
> >>This text does nothing to distinguish between the actual city 
> >>of Paris and a web page about the city of Paris. Both can be 
> >>denoted by URIs and have their "essential characteristics 
> >>conveyed in a message".
> >>
> >>Why not simply state that an "information resource" *is* 
> >>information -- i.e. a body of information??? Why talk about 
> >>characteristics, essence, etc. which can be interpreted in 
> >>various ways which do not fully support the distinction you 
> >>are trying to make? 
> >>
> >>(see my proposed alternate text below)
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>This document is an example of an information resource. It 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>consists of 
> >>    
> >>
> >>>words and punctuation symbols and graphics and other 
> artifacts that 
> >>>can be encoded, with varying degrees of fidelity, into a 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>sequence of 
> >>    
> >>
> >>>bits.
> >>>
> >>>There is nothing about the essential information content of this 
> >>>document that cannot in principle be transfered in a 
> representation.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>How does "essential characteristics" intersect with 
> >>"essential information content"? And can there be content of 
> >>an information resource that is not "essential"?
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>However, our use of the term resource is intentionally more broad. 
> >>>Other things, such as cars and dogs (and, if you've printed this 
> >>>document on physical sheets of paper, the artifact that you are 
> >>>holding in your hand), are resources too. They are not information 
> >>>resources, however, because their essence is not information.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I like the above text, from "However, our use of...". It 
> >>reflects the primary distinction between information 
> >>resources and other resources -- in that information resource 
> >>*are* information.
> >>
> >>If you would simply, above, define an information resource as 
> >>a resource that constitutes a body of information, then this 
> >>text would fit very nicely with that simple, precise definition.
> >>
> >>(see my proposed alternate text below)
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Although it is possible to
> >>>describe a great many things about a car or a dog in a sequence of 
> >>>bits, the sum of those things
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Sum of those *bits*? Or sum of all resources (cars, dogs, etc.)?
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>will invariably be an approximation of the essential 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>character of the 
> >>    
> >>
> >>>resource.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I think you're using "character" in a very narrow manner that 
> >>most folks won't immediately grasp, or necessarily agree with.
> >>
> >>The "character" of a particular wine is not likely to be 
> >>understood as the chemical makeup of that wine or the details 
> >>of how that wine is produced, but in the sensory affect that 
> >>wine has on ones senses of taste and smell (and perhaps also 
> >>the alcohol content and subsequent affect).
> >>
> >>Likewise, the "essense" of a particular wine is likely to be 
> >>understood in a similar fashion to its character or characteristics.
> >>
> >>And one can certainly think it reasonable to convey the 
> >>characteristics of a wine, even the essense of a wine, in a message.
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>We define the term "information resource" because we 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>observe that it 
> >>    
> >>
> >>>is useful in discussions of web technology and may be useful in 
> >>>constructing specifications for facilities built for use 
> on the web.
> >>></quote>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Fine. No problem with that text. But you have to nail down 
> >>the definition of information resource a bit more precisely.
> >>
> >>And, BTW, sticking with including the definition of 
> >>"information resource" does not preclude the definition of a 
> >>"web resource",
> >>*both* of which will be "useful in discussions of web 
> >>technology", etc.
> >>
> >>(see my proposed alternate text below)
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>This text moves the definition of "Information Resource" 
> >>>in-line at the
> >>>beginning of section 2.2 rather than by forward reference to the 
> >>>former section 3.1.
> >>>
> >>>Please can you let us know if we have addressed your 
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>comment to your 
> >>    
> >>
> >>>satisfaction (if possible before our next telcon which 
> will be 18th 
> >>>October).
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>No you have not, because the new definition "information 
> >>resource" is as ambiguous as the previous, and I can still 
> >>see how one may arrive at the conclusion that a dog is an 
> >>information resource, because the "essential characteristics" 
> >>of that dog can be conveyed in a message.
> >>
> >>Since "conveying characteristics in a message" seems 
> >>analogous to "represent the state of the resource", this new 
> >>definition can be construed as being the same, in essence ;-) 
> >>as the previous: that any resource for which one can convey 
> >>its essential characteristics in a message -- i.e provide a 
> >>representation of its state -- is an information resource; 
> >>thus any web accessible resource is an information resource.
> >>
> >>Sorry. But I do not find (all of) the new text acceptable. 
> >>There is some useful new text, as noted above, but the 
> >>critical ambiguity (and implicit suggestions about the nature 
> >>of web accessible
> >>resources) remains.
> >>
> >>Here is how I would write this section:
> >>
> >><quote>
> >>2.2. URI/Resource Relationships
> >>
> >>By design a URI identifies one resource. We do not limit the 
> >>scope of what might be a resource. The term "resource" is 
> >>used in a general sense for whatever might be identified by a URI. 
> >>
> >>While our use of the term resource is intentionally broad, 
> >>there are, however, two particular classes of resources for 
> >>which it is useful to draw an explicit distinction, and thus 
> >>we define the two following terms to refer to these 
> >>particular classes of resource:
> >>
> >>"web resource"
> >>
> >>   A "web resource" is a resource which has one or more web 
> accessible
> >>   representations. 
> >>
> >>   Colloquially, web resources are said to be "on-the-web". 
> Membership
> >>   of a given resource in the class of web resources may 
> >>change over time,
> >>   as access to at least one representation of a given 
> >>resource may change. 
> >>   Furthermore, given mechanisms for security and access 
> >>control, the set 
> >>   of web resources may vary between different users or 
> >>contexts. What may
> >>   be web accessible for one user may not be for another. 
> Dispite this
> >>   variability, it is still a useful distinction to make.
> >>
> >>"information resource"
> >>
> >>   An "information resource" is a resource which constitutes a body
> >>   of information.
> >>
> >>   It is conventional on the hypertext web to describe web 
> >>pages, images, 
> >>   product catalogs, documents, etc. as "resources". The 
> >>distinguishing 
> >>   characteristic of these particular kinds of resources is 
> >>that they all 
> >>   constitute bodies of information, and thus belong to the 
> class of 
> >>   "information resources". Information resources are 
> central to many
> >>   of the most successful and widespread applications of the web.
> >>   
> >>Note that not all web resources are information resources, 
> >>nor are all information resources also web resources. There 
> >>may be resources which constitute bodies of information and 
> >>which are named by URIs but which are not web accessible. 
> >>Likewise, there may be resources which are named by URIs and 
> >>are web accessible, but do not constitute bodies of information.
> >>
> >>This document is an example of an information resource. It 
> >>consists of words and punctuation symbols and graphics and 
> >>other artifacts that can be encoded, with varying degrees of 
> >>fidelity, into a sequence of bits. 
> >>All of the information content of this document can, in 
> >>principle, be transfered in a representation. And since a 
> >>representation of this document is also accessible via the 
> >>web, it is also an example of a web resource.
> >>
> >>The city of Paris, France is an example of a resource which 
> >>is not an information resource. While information about the 
> >>city of Paris may be conveyed in one or more representations, 
> >>the city of Paris does not itself constitute a body of 
> >>information, and therefore any web accessible representation 
> >>of the city of Paris will inevitably constitute only an 
> >>approximation or description of that resource, rather than 
> >>conveying information content inherent in the resource 
> >>itself. And if the city of Paris is denoted by the URI 
> >><http://example.com/cities/paris> and a representation of the 
> >>city of Paris is accessible via that URI, then the city of 
> >>Paris would be an example of a web resource, even though it 
> >>is not an example of an information resource.
> >>
> >>The terms "information resource" and "web resource" are not 
> >>essential to the fundamental architecture of the web, but we 
> >>define these two terms because we observe that they are 
> >>useful in discussions of web technology and web usage, and 
> >>may be useful in constructing specifications for facilities 
> >>built for use on the web.
> >></quote>
> >>
> >>I expect that you and other members of the TAG may wish to 
> >>finesse the above wording, but I think that it captures 
> >>exactly what can, and should, be defined in AWWW regarding 
> >>information and web resources, and what a reasonably broad 
> >>majority of folks should find acceptable.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Patrick
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Many thanks,
> >>>
> >>>Stuart Williams
> >>>On behalf of W3C TAG
> >>>--
> >>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#id-resources
> >>>
> >>>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>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 Wednesday, 20 October 2004 07:27:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:46 GMT