RE: "information resource"

Thanks Stuart. I find the proposed changes acceptable. And also
encourage the inclusion of the optional text of #3 below.

Cheers,

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
> Sent: 21 September, 2004 12:40
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "information resource"
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> Yesterday the TAG discussed [3] a proposal [2]  to address 
> your comment 
> [1] which I repeat below, slightly amended. The TAG asked me 
> to give it 
> a wider airing by re-posting on www-tag.
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> 1) Replace all occurences of the noun phrase "information 
> resource" with 
> the noun phrase "web resource".
> 
> 2) Replace the defining sentence for the noun phrase "information 
> resource" (section 3.1 1st para, 1st sentence) :
> 
>  "The term Information Resource refers to resources that convey 
> information. Any resource that has a representation is an information 
> resource."
> 
> with
> 
>  "The term Web Resource is applicable to resources for which web 
> acesssible representations are available and/or which may be 
> interacted 
> with through an exchange of representations. Any resource that has a 
> representation is an information resource."
> 
> 3) [Optional]  Consider adding a nearby sentence: "Colloquially, Web 
> Resources are said to be "on-the-web"."
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Stuart Williams
> -- 
> [1]  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> 04JulSep/0047.html 
> 
> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> 04JulSep/0086.html
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/36BA0C62-0B7F-11D9-946B-000393753936@gbiv.com
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 21 September 2004 10:16:21 UTC