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

Re: "information resource"

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:21:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4140AD4A.9040802@hp.com>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, public-webarch-comments@w3.org

Hello Patrick,

Thank you for the clarifications below. I've Cc'd 
public-webarch-comments on this occasion since it is useful to have the 
substance of your response threaded along side your original comment in 
that archive.

Best regards.

Stuart
--

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
>>ext Stuart Williams
>>Sent: 09 September, 2004 17:19
>>To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
>>Cc: michael@neonym.net; www-tag@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: "information resource"
>>
>>
>>
>>Hello Patrick,
>>
>>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
>>>>Sent: 09 September, 2004 13:09
>>>>To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); michael@neonym.net
>>>>Cc: www-tag@w3.org
>>>>Subject: RE: "information resource"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>The fact that both I and TimBL come to different conclusions 
>>>>>based on the same document indicates that there is a problem 
>>>>>with the definition of "information resource".
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>I think that the document takes no position on whether or 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>not an HTTP
>>    
>>
>>>>URI such as the one you cite may or may not be used to 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>denote/identify
>>    
>>
>>>>an actual dog.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Per the literal reading, no. My concern was about the potential
>>>for reading additional meaning into AWWW based on the choice
>>>of words for the term "information resource", beyond its actual
>>>definition.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Ok... so it is not what the document actually says that troubles you, 
>>but the potential for folks to read more deeply than intended 
>>into the 
>>concept currently labelled "information resource". Is that a 
>>fair summary?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>  
>
>>>My proposal is, and has been, that either the distinction/term
>>>is not needed, or that a different term (label) be associated
>>>with that distinction/definition.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>So... would a different label for the concept, assuming we 
>>find one that 
>>met with general approval, address your original comment [1] to your 
>>satisfaction? ie. the concept stays, but we give it a 
>>different label .
>>    
>>
>
>Yes.
> 
>  
>
>>I think that you are saying here and below that it would - 
>>although it's 
>>clear that you would prefer that no distinction were made.
>>    
>>
>
>Or that, the distinction is so fundamental that no special
>term is needed.
>
>It is enough, I think, to simply make clear the distinction
>between resources in general versus resources which have
>web accessible representations, and that the web machinery
>is only concerned with the latter. Once you make that distinction,
>nothing more need be said.
>
>Though, I'm also not opposed to a distinct term to refer to
>the class of resources having web accessible representations.
>
>Applying KISS, it seems that either "web resource" or 
>"web accessible resource" would be the most obvious choices
>(the former being more concise, and hence more convenient).
>
>  
>
>>>The use of the words "information resource" can be construed
>>>as implicitly supporting TimBL's position rather than taking
>>>a neutral stance pending resolution of httpRange-14.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Apart from the choice of label for the concept we have currently 
>>labelled "information resource"... is there anything else 
>>that you have 
>>found in the document that could be construed as an implicit 
>>resolution 
>>of httpRange-14?
>>    
>>
>
>Not that I would be inclined to make a case about.
>
>The discussion of "secondary resources" has the potential
>for fueling that debate, but I have nothing against the
>definition of such a class of resources, on a technical
>basis, nor with the way that class is defined and presented
>in AWWW.
>
>There may be dragons lurking in there somewhere, but I
>can't say I can point one out ;-)
>
>  
>
>>>My explicit proposal would be to replace the words 
>>>      
>>>
>>"information resource"
>>    
>>
>>>with either "web resource" or "web accessible resource" which IMO
>>>would coincide more precisely with the actual definition and not
>>>potentially imply any position relating to httpRange-14.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>This again suggests, well more than suggests, that a change in label 
>>could address the comment to your satisfaction.
>>    
>>
>
>It would. And I would hope that that is also clear from my 
>original post.
>
>  
>
>><snip/>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>>The TAG needs to make a decision on this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>Either "resources" (a) can be anything that can be 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>named, including
>>    
>>
>>>>>abstract concepts, astrological bodies, persons, etc. and URIs
>>>>>can denote anything or (b) they must be constrained to 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>things that
>>    
>>
>>>>>correspond to "bodies of information" which can be expressed in a
>>>>>digital form accessible via the web, and URIs can denote 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>only such
>>    
>>
>>>>>bodies of information.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>AWWW has taken a position on that. AWWW says:
>>>>
>>>>"We do not limit the scope of what might be a resource. The term 
>>>>"resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be 
>>>>identified 
>>>>by a URI."
>>>>
>>>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I appreciate the literal wording of AWWW on this matter. I'm 
>>>      
>>>
>>concerned
>>    
>>
>>>simply with implicit meaning or potential interpretations which
>>>extend beyond the literal wording.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>A natural problem with natural language...
>>
>>    
>>
>>>This particular post to which you are replying is as much a response
>>>to TimBL's interpretation of the term "information resource" per AWWW
>>>as to the potential for confusion about the meaning of this term.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I understand that, and TimBL has been challenged by others to support 
>>his interpretation by reference to the document itself. There 
>>may be a 
>>separate thread to be had on that topic (and I suspect you can find 
>>several ready made such threads in this archive :-)) but the topic in 
>>hand on this thread is or should be about what if anything needs to 
>>change in the document to satisfactorally address your comment.
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed. I am happy to restrict this thread to the issue of the
>choice of label for the concept in question, and not to deeper
>issues relating to httpRange-14 or other matters.
>
>  
>
>>>>>The latest draft of AWWW still attempts to accomodate both
>>>>>views, leaving far too much to interpretation -- and
>>>>>perpetuating the present chaos by allowing those holding view (a)
>>>>>and those holding view (b) to both reference the same document
>>>>>as supposedly supporting their view/interpretation and 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>use the same
>>    
>>
>>>>>terms as defined by that document -- yet *still* in actuality
>>>>>disagree about critically fundamental aspects of web 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>architecture.
>>    
>>
>>>>AFAICT tell AWWWW clearly takes position (a) above. Can you show me 
>>>>something in the document that advances position (b)?
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>The choice of the words "information resource" as the label for the
>>>term used to differentiate web accessible resources from resources
>>>in general.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>So again, a different term label has potential to address 
>>your comment?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>Regards,
>
>Patrick
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 19:22:00 GMT

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