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

Re: "information resource"

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:46:00 +0100
Message-ID: <41517408.3060604@hp.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
Cc: 'Jon Hanna' <jon@hackcraft.net>, 'Chris Lilley' <chris@w3.org>, 'Jacek Kopecky' <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, www-tag@w3.org


Thanks for clearing that up...

> It can clarify that the colloquial meaning is matched 
> to the testable meaning in any case where the colloquialism 
> confuses a user of that colloquialism.

I had read this as "the colloquialism confuses a user of the colloquialism in just those cases where the colloquial meaning matches the testable mean." Which sounded like you were having fun with us - and no harm in that. On reparsing I can see that that is *not* what you were saying at all. You were commenting on the potential utility of the colloquailism.

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>That was a thumbs up.  It notes that the colloquial term 
>within the scope of the architecture has a testable meaning 
>and that is the same as the test for 'information resource': 
>it returns a representation.

Indeed that was the intent. I think what some others feel is lost from 
the proposal I made is the notion of a class of resource which "conveys 

>Right? Or am I confused too?
Yes... you are right, and I was confused :-)

>I think of it in the traditional sense of "ontological 
>commitment" per Thomas Gruber.
>"An ontology should require the minimal ontological 
>commitment sufficient to support the intended knowledge 
>sharing activities... Since ontological commitment is based 
>on consistent use of vocabulary, ontological commitment can 
>be minimized by specifying the weakest theory (allowing 
>the most models) and defining only those terms which are 
>essential to the communication of knowledge consistent 
>with that theory."

Cool... I should read some more of him.

>From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
>Stuart Williams
>So Len... that's a thumbs down on the colloquailism?
>Or maybe you wanted to confuse... :-) and maybe in my case succeeded :-)

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 12:46:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:43 UTC