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

You took all the context out of my statement, Len. That's not quite
cricket. I meant that within a technical document, we get to say how
we're using words *in that document*. Changing the color of the box,
as Stuart would likely express it, doesn't change what's in the box.
And technical specifications are all about saying what goes in the
boxes.

I was not making a statement about the meaning of words in general. I
may or may not agree with the more general statement as you've
expressed it, but it isn't what I was saying in that message :-)

/ "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com> was heard to say:
| Ok.  Resources are meaningless bits until you 
| say what they mean.   An information resource is one 
| act removed from a resource.   Such an act may be 
| conflating (say overloading) a URI to be a 
| name, an interpretation, and an identifier.
|
| The unification of a triple is not a fact; it is an act.
|
| len
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
| Norman Walsh
|
| Words mean what we say they mean.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.