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

Re: Draft minutes TAG f2f 6 Oct 2004

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:22:54 +0200
Message-ID: <69414574.20041007152254@w3.org>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

On Thursday, October 7, 2004, 10:10:47 AM, Patrick wrote:


PSnc> Hi folks,

PSnc> One comments on the minutes of your meeting.

PSnc> DanC suggests:

PSnc> [
PSnc> Dan: One difference occured to me, if you can get hold of the 
PSnc> resource itself for commercial purposes can the resource be 
PSnc> duplicated, or consumed, bu looking at it so therefore a movie, 
PSnc> donloaded anfd not paid for is an info resource while the table 
PSnc> is not because looking at the table did not consume it
PSnc> ]

PSnc> Firstly: would it be fair to recast this as "an information
PSnc> resource is any resource that might fall within the scope
PSnc> of copyright law"? That sounds like a useful criteria for
PSnc> determining (potential/probable) membership in the class
PSnc> of "information resources" -- though this could (should)
PSnc> simply be captured in an RDF schema that folks can use to
PSnc> classify their resources as they see fit.

Norm made a similar half proposal that an Info Resource was one to which
Intellectual Property applied. It was minuted, but he withdrew the
suggestion and it was not further discussed.


PSnc> Secondly: I don't think the issue has ever been that folks are
PSnc> particularly confused about what TimBL means by "information resource",

Oh yes they have been :)

PSnc> but rather whether the set of web-accessible resources should be
PSnc> constrained to be equivalent to the set of "information resources"

No, that isn't a good constraint to adopt.

PSnc> per TimBLs definition. The above test helps to clarify the 
PSnc> nature of the membership of "information resources" (per TimBLs
PSnc> definition) but does not address the question of whether that class
PSnc> should be equivalent to the class of web-accessible resources.

You would see in the minutes that I proposed a half test; if an resource
can be interacted with by exchanging representations then it is a Web
Resource; if it cannot be interacted with then you don't know.


PSnc> 2. In the discussion regarding Claud Shannon's work, TimBL 
PSnc> states that he uses the term "information resource" in the
PSnc> same way as Claud Shannon, though in the referenced materials
PSnc> Claud Shannon appears to only use the term "information source" 
PSnc> (not resource) and I would expect that there is a singificant 
PSnc> distinction there (such that if the distinction is lost, much
PSnc> confusion could arise). Every source may be a kind of resource, 
PSnc> but not every resource may be a kind of source.

The referenced resource was just a quick real-time fact check and not
intended to be a definitive summarising of Claude Shannon's work.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
>> ext Chris Lilley
>> Sent: 06 October, 2004 19:18
>> To: www-tag@w3.org
>> Subject: Draft minutes TAG f2f 6 Oct 2004
>> 
>> 
>> Hello www-tag,
>> 
>> Minutes attached.
>> 
>> -- 
>>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>>  Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>>  Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
>> 




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2004 13:22:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:43 UTC