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

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

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:38:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4176BE9C.1040309@eircom.net>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
>>ext Norman Walsh
>>Sent: 18 October, 2004 20:22
>>To: www-tag@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]
>>
>>It happens that my dog is sleeping in my lap as I type this. I don't
>>think anyone could convey everything that is essential about my dog in
>>a message. There are characteristics of mass and texture and warmth
>>and affection that are not essentially information.
> 
> 
> Exactly. I.e. it is not possible to *transfer* all of the *fundamental substance*
> of your dog in a message, therefore your dog is not an "information resource".

That doesn't help  - '*fundamental substance*' is undefined; I 
contend the definition is not easily captured.  I myself do not know 
whether a dog could be an information resource:

   http://www.fhcrc.org/science/dog_genome/

Can someone clarify what is lost when the concept of information 
resource is taken away? Or what is gained when it is present?

cheers
Bill
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2004 19:38:41 UTC

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