W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:17:55 +0100
Message-ID: <48033D63.4040903@musc.edu>
To: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
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>



Michaeljohn Clement wrote:
> 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.
>   
Michaeljohn, wasn't all my arguments about telling people that two 
definitions are not practical? You treat that two definitions in a 
religious and sentimental way.  I treat them in scientific way.  See my 
post here: 
http://dfdf-note.blogspot.com/2007/11/zen-and-love-of-information-resource.html

Not try to make fun of it but truly want to enlighten our thoughts on 
this debate.
>> 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.
>   
No apology needed.  I didn't get offended easily.  But sometime I do get 
impatient and frustrated.  It is not that I don't want to address your 
point.  It is because I don't know what *is* your point.  You tell me 
exactly what is IR, then I can know how to agree or disagree.  If there 
is no httpRange-14 or any attempt to invoke some logic to follow it, I 
wouldn't have to bother argue for all these.

I didn't say that I can tell you exactly what a gene is.  But I didn't 
ask people to follow a specific way to describe a gene, either.

If you think the distinction of IR and httpRange-14 is important, make 
it in a meaningful way so that other people can follow your guideline.  
But why do you insist on asking me to help you to explain your ambiguous 
position? I cannot - it is beyond my capability! If you can, do it by 
all means and if it makes sense and inclusive, I will be very glad to 
follow.  

Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 11:18:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:56 GMT