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

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

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:33:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4173FE67.1070602@hp.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org

Sandro Hawke wrote:

>>"Document" is a place we have been before. It suffers from some problems.=
>>...
>>
>>1) Resource-ful and Respresentation senses of use.
>>
>>2) Concrete or concpetual - from the current editors draft:
>>
>>"However, our use of the term resource is intentionally more broad. Other
>>things, such as cars and dogs (and, if you=92ve 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 think may would consider the printed paper artifact a "document".
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, although that's also true of "Information Resource".   Maybe the
>best option is "Web Document".
>  
>
Change the colour of the wrapping paper... (again)  ;-)

>>3) As an alternate for "resource" or "information resource" it is not=20
>>reflective of the possibility that whilst the representation may be=20
>>document like, the resource itself need not be.
>>eg. a robot arm.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't buy that.  A robot arm is certainly not an Information
>Resource; 
>
Well you were looking for counter examples for a definition of 
"document" that applied to resources that returned 200 OK and a 
representation.

>it has very useful non-information qualities, like being
>able to pick things up!  The arm may have an document-like interface
>however, which is on the web, has a URI, ... and is an Information
>Resource / Web Document.  If someone makes the mistake of thinking one
>of those interface documents is the arm, make a second one which
>behaves differently.  They are usefully different resources, even
>though there is only one arm.
>  
>
We've been working with an abstraction named resource and (at least on 
the RESTful web) resources have a generic interface. It hasn't been 
common to separately identify the resource and its interface. I don't 
think it common for documents (in the resourceful sense of a conceptual 
work). Is there a compelling reason for doing so for robot arms?

>>I also think that we should avoid taxonomising... "information resource"=20
>>takes one step in that direction as does "web resource" - and I can see=20
>>both defn's are intentionally different such that defining both gives us=20
>>four boxes to think about... and I can see the ground beginning to slip=20
>>away....
>>    
>>
>
>I think I'll dress up as an ontology for halloween, so I can really scare
>people.   :-)
>  
>

I want to see the pictures... which is another way of throwing down the 
gauntlet... GFI :-)

>       -- sandro
>  
>
Stuart
--
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 17:33:36 UTC

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