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

RE: Towards a precise, reliable definition of "information resource"

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:05:04 +0100
Message-ID: <8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC94D2ABB@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Hello Patrick, 

> > Hello Patrick,
> > 
> > This doesn't seem entirely consistent with:
> > 
> > From:  
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> > 04OctDec/0097.html
> > 
> > > I am not satisfied with this outcome, but I also do not intend to 
> > > consume more of my own time in this matter. My concerns are a
matter
> > > of public record. I leave it to the TAG to decide whether to
reflect
> > > any of the actual progress made in online discussions in the
actual 
> > > text of AWWW, or to leave the issue unresolved.
> 
> Well, we all get tired of this seemingly endless debate, and 
> my additional comments were in direct response to Noah 
> regarding a neutral position about issue httpRange-14. 
> Furthermore, even if there are no further modifications to 
> the definition of "information resource", I still think it 
> would be greatly beneficial for readers of AWWW (and for the 
> TAG) to produce and agree on such a pair of lists. It seems 
> the only reason why most/all parties concerned appear to 
> agree on what actually is an information resource is based on 
> the examples presented of what folks think can or cannot be 
> an information resource. Therefore, if that has been the true 
> key to achieving clarity and concensus, it should be 
> encorporated into the TAGs presentation.
> 
> Consider it a "parting suggestion" insofar as the definition 
> of "information resource" is concerned.

A "parting suggestion"... ok.

> > or more recently (abeit with stated preconditions)  from 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> > 04OctDec/0097.html
> > 
> > > The inclusion of the definition of "information resource" (albeit
> > > imperfect) is reasonable, as the mere presence of a definition of
such
> > > a class of resources does not, or at least should not, imply that
the
> > > range of resources which http: URIs (or any other form of URI) can

> > > identify is constrained solely to such a class of "information 
> > > resources". (though, IMO, the definition could be completely
omitted
> > > without AWWW incuring any notable loss of utility or coherence)
> > 
> > This thread has grown long, folks are tired and need space to think
> 
> IMO, my comments to Noah regarding the adoption of a neutral 
> stance regarding this issue is precisely to enable AWWW to
> mature and stabilize while allowing this issue to be put, as 
> Noah suggests, on the back burner -- so that folks can return 
> to it at a later time when they can apply more energy and 
> experience to its resolution.
> 
> > (for themselves). 
> 
> Tut tut, I'm sure that all members of the TAG are more than 
> capable of thinking for themselves, regardless of my input. 

The are indeed. But nevertheless doing due diligence (as best we can) to
the traffic on this list consumes huge amounts of bandwidth to the point
that lenghty and repeated postings become counterproductive - either
because of the time it takes to consume them... or because, well, they
will get ignored.

In fairness the message that I responded to was short, focussed and made
a new suggestion. It probably should not have triggered the response I
gave, so my apologies for that. 

> > Please let them have it.
> 
> I'm trying to. 

Thank you.

> To the degree that further editorial changes to AWWW truly 
> reflect a neutral position on issue httpRange-14, I will not 
> likely be motivated to readdress this issue to the TAG 
> insofar as AWWW is concerned.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Patrick

Stuart
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 08:05:40 UTC

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