Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

On 6/7/13 11:10 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> To try to take this conversation forward, [1][2] contain (with diffs
>> highlighted) a new Abstract, which removes 'resource', and introduces
>> the 'active' aspect of the Web, as follows:
>>
>>    The World Wide Web uses relatively simple technologies with
>>    sufficient scalability, efficiency and utility that they have
>>    resulted in a remarkable interconnected space of information and
>>    services, growing across languages, cultures and media. In an effort
>>    to preserve these properties of the space as the technologies
>>    evolve, this architecture document discusses the core design
>>    components of the Web. They are identification of information and
>>    services,
> Information isn't identified though, the source is what's identified.
> We know this because when the information changes, the identifier
> doesn't need to change.
>
>> representation of information state
> What's "information state"?
>
>> and service requests,
>>    and the protocols that support the interaction between agents in the
>>    space. We relate core design components, constraints, and good
>>    practices to the principles and properties they support.
>>
>> Does this look like the kind of direction we'd like to move in?
> Not IMO. I don't think any description of Web architecture is complete
> without acknowledging the distinction between the data and its source.
> AFAICT, the only way to do that is with a word that's synonymous with
> "resource".
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
Wouldn't this the thrashed out as part of the AWWW 2.0 effort? We can 
ultimately skin this rat without "Resource" as the eternal confusion 
vector. It has its place, but not in the overarching manner that exists 
today.

For instance, Data is a kind of Resource. On the Web it is 
contextualized and perceptible via Web Documents (aka Information 
Resources or Information Objects).

The issue is that Resource is very generic, so its place has to be at 
the top of a terminology tree (or taxonomy) .

As part of AWWW 2.0 we should consider building an ontology that 
effectively describes AWWW. That too can be managed effectively via github.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen