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

RE: "information resource"

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:54:18 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1C86@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

Oops. Should have sent that to public-webarch-comments@w3.org.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere) 
> Sent: 01 September, 2004 14:42
> To: 'www-tag@w3.org'
> Subject: "information resource"
> Regarding the August 16 version of "Architecture of the World 
> Wide Web"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/#dereference-uri
> In section 3.1 it states:
> "The term Information Resource refers to resources that 
> convey information.
>  Any resource that has a representation is an information resource."
> While I understand the desire to introduce a term which enables people
> to speak directly about resources which are web-accessible, 
> it seems to
> me that this particular term will provide more confusion than utility.
> Since *any* resource *can* (potentially) have a representation, the
> membership of the class of "information resources" is a reflection of
> the management, over time, of those resources, not any intrinsic 
> characteristic of the resources themselves.
> I may have a dog, which is denoted by a URI, and if I choose 
> to publish
> representations of that dog via that URI, that in no way changes the
> nature of that dog. And I have a hard time thinking of that dog as
> an "information resource", just because someone can dereference its
> URI to get some representation of the dog.
> Likewise, membership in this class of "information resources" will
> be transient. At one time, there may be a URI denoted resource that
> has no representation. Then it does, at which time it becomes an
> "information resource". Later, the representations are no longer
> accessible, at which time it ceases to be an "information resource";
> insofar as the definition provided is concerned.
> I expect that most folks will percieve membership in the class of
> "information resources" to reflect an intrisic characteristic of
> the resource itself, rather than simply a condition of its management
> (or management of representations of that resource, depending on 
> how you look at it).
> Why not simply talk about the "web accessibility" of a given resource,
> and clearly note the potentially transient and management-based
> nature of that accessibility.
> Positing a class of "information resources", as defined, is more
> likely to cause confusion than clarity. This seems to be a case of
> "less is more". Just leave the term out.
> Regards,
> Patrick
> --
> Patrick Stickler
> Nokia, Finland
> patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 11:54:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:42 UTC