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

RE: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:19:40 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A56471E1@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <skw@hp.com>, <chris@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Sent: 15 October, 2004 13:11
> To: Chris Lilley
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Chris, 
> 
> <snip/
> > SW> How is that different from saying that the nature of 
> the resource
> is 
> > SW> information?
> > 
> > Something whose nature is not, exclusively or even mainly, 
> > information can have information associated with it. A body 
> > of information, even. Its a vague and all inclusive term so I don't
> like it.
> > 
> > SW> I'm confused by your reference to a dog here...I think by our
> Basel 
> > SW> defn a dog is *not* an (Basel defn) "Information Resource".
> > 
> > Correct. I would like it to remain so.
> 
> Ok... I think that is where Patrick is too.

Correct.


> > >>To take an example, a resource for my fictional dog might 
> return as
> a 
> > >>representation its veterinary records (blood test results 
> and so on)
> - 
> > >>clearly a body of information, and clearly not conveying 
> the entire 
> > >>essence of the dog.
> > >>
> > SW> A "resource for my fictional dog"... are we speaking of 
> one or two
> 
> > SW> resources here?
> > 
> > One.
> > 
> > SW> Are you arguing that the dog is or is not an IR?
> > 
> > I'm arguing that the dog resource would in Patrick's 
> > definition be an IR because it has a body of information (its 
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> This is not Patricks defn!
> 
> > medical records) but should not be an IR (per Basel def.).
> 
> Patricks defn is: "An "information resource" is a resource which
> constitutes a body of information."
> 
> Deeper in his message [1] he says "Why not simply state that an
> "information resource" *is*
> information -- i.e. a body of information???"
> 
> I take him be using the word 'constitutes' in the sense of 'is'.

Correct.

Patrick
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 08:20:45 UTC

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