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

Re: "information resource"

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:53:50 +0200
Message-ID: <1818881881.20040924155350@w3.org>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
Cc: 'Jon Hanna' <jon@hackcraft.net>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, skw@hp.com, jacek.kopecky@deri.org, <www-tag@w3.org>

On Friday, September 24, 2004, 12:09:51 AM, Claude wrote:

BCLL> The definition is for a web resource.  The other word senses aren't
BCLL> applicable.  That is why it is a weak theory.  It isn't intended to
BCLL> be a comprehensive ontology for the colloquialism.  That is also 
BCLL> why 'on the web' has to be called 'colloquial' instead of a 
BCLL> formal term.

Well put.

BCLL>   A hard and stubborn part of writing the
BCLL> web arch doc and in fact, any specification or standard is 
BCLL> to "conserve nouns" as Goldfarb said, to reduce misinterpretation.
BCLL> It is similar to formal ontology work in that respect.  Ontologies
BCLL> are theories.  Ontological commitment as defined by Gruber means 
BCLL> committing to a theory or word sense, typically, with a means to 
BCLL> verify the commitment through a testable property.  What has 
BCLL> been pointed out several times by several individuals is that 
BCLL> the term 'web resource' is testable.  So, this is a good term 
BCLL> for the formal set of web architecture terms.

Yes.

BCLL> Try to conceive of a test for 'information space'.

Well, one can, with the drawback that everything tested passes. So its
not usefully testable.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 24 September 2004 13:53:51 GMT

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