- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:57:46 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Jonathan Rees wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> For example, Ruttenberg's Scylla seems a perfectly fine model for IRs. >> Maybe some IRs are Aristotelian abstractions, but other IRs might be >> other things. You would have to argue that the Scylla cannot be the >> right model, for some reason. > > pointer? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/ Alan Ruttenberg's position, that certain kinds of things might be licensed (by a standing committee, perhaps) to call themselves 'information resources', but that there is no principle that unites all such kinds. I call this design point "Ruttenberg's Scylla". I neither agree nor disagree with it, but my switch to talking about axioms/requirements rather than 'vitalism' or ontology was an acknowledgment that he might be right. As for the "all information is description" thing... I'm touchy because I'm fresh off of a comments spat on my blog on this subject. It always smells like an attempt to snuff httpRange-14 by arguing that everything has a representation (sensu webarch) because representation (sensu hunoz) and description are the same thing. You probably know what I think of that argument by now. Best Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 01:58:19 UTC