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

RE: Information resources?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:25:35 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1CD5@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 13:57
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Information resources?
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting "Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>:
> 
> > A "web resource" is significant to the web layer.
> > A "resource" is significant to the semantic web layer.
> 
> To my mind a resource is a resource. If it has a URI it is a 
> resource, and it is
> the same resource whatever technology is using the URI 
> (otherwise the U and I
> don't hold).

Yes. A "web resource" is a subclass of "resource".

A "resource" is a "resource".
A "web resource" is a "resource".
A "representation" is a "resource".

Anything named with a URI is a resource.

And while the membership of any given resource in the class
of "web resources" may change/alternate over time (depending
on whether the resource in question has, or doesn't have,
web accessible representations) it remains a resource, 
nonetheless.

But having a term such as "web resource" or "web accessible resource"
seems to offer non-trivial utility to some folks, so I have no 
problem with AWWW defining such a term. As long as the label chosen
for the term does not suggest more than the definition itself.
 
> 
> The difference between the web and semantic web layer is 
> whether having *any*
> understanding of what that resource is an AI-complete problem or not.

I think I agree with that ;-)

One could perhaps say that the web layer doesn't care about
the resources themselves (unless they are representations) and
provides no explicit means to determine the nature of the resource
denoted by any given URI (any such determination or interpretation
is simply not relevant to the functioning of the web -- it just
doesn't matter at the web level).

> 
> > 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" ;-)
> 
> Can't say that I favour "pumpkin" ;)

Er, ahem, well... one *would* hope the term would seem intuitive ;-)

Patrick


> 
> -- 
> Jon Hanna
> <http://www.hackcraft.net/>
> "...if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's 
> probably not a 
> ConceptualWork about a duck." - Mark Baker
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 11:29:23 GMT

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