- From: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:54:50 -0600
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > Come on. Define IR and essential before using it to argue O.K.? For "IR", I guess you can start here: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-information-resource And maybe this will help you: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Model.html#Resource For "essential", the normal English meaning applies. > How can > we have a meaningful argument on something that has an ambiguous > definitions? It is a basic human problem; perhaps you should ask a linguist or philosopher. Or ask a biologist about "gene". > That is again you have not fully understand what I and Pat try to tell > you. It is not move /away/, you can still work in the same way as you > do now. It is about to have /more/ ways to do /more/ things - in a more > useful and meaningful way. You assert this, but did not address my point. I apologize if my answers appear flippant, but I do not wish to repeat myself and do not see how to clarify further so I will leave it at that. Regards, Michaeljohn
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 10:55:32 UTC