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

RE: Information resources?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:30:22 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1CD2@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <jon@hackcraft.net>, <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Jon Hanna
> Sent: 09 September, 2004 13:12
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Information resources?
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting "Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>:
> 
> > If "information resource" in AWWW was simply replaced with 
> > "web resource", then that would be much, much better.
> 
> +1 though I think I prefer "resource" over "web resource", as 
> "web resource" to
> my ear implies something which is inherently "webby" and 
> which would not/could
> not exist without the existence of the web, nor be identified 
> or represented on
> any other system, including the hypothetical system TimBL 
> mentions when
> explaining his principle of independent invention.

Well, I think it's useful to have a term such as "web resource",
or perhaps "web accessible resource" to differentiate between
resources which are significant to the web versus resources 
which are not.

A "web resource" is significant to the web layer.
A "resource" is significant to the semantic web layer.

Thus we have the terminology to describe the intersection/relationship
between the web and the semantic web -- such that the set of resources
significant to the web is a subset of the set of resources significant
to the semantic web.

Whether the term itself is "web resource" or "booga" or "pumpkin", 
should still be a matter of discussion (as long as the term is *not*
"information resource" ;-)

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 10:33:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:28 GMT