- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:19:41 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 13:40 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:18 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> > Nathan, >> > >> > Have you looked at the definition of IR that I proposed a while back? >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Apr/0046.html >> > It is logically equivalent to Roy's definition of a REST resource, ... >> >> I would not call either of these definitions. They are models, or >> theories, or formalisms - they predict certain properties of IRs. But >> they are not a good match to any plausible ontology of IRs since they >> entail ridiculous conclusions such as "Moby Dick is a function" and >> "the domain of the Declaration of Independence is time". > > I do not consider those to be ridiculous entailments at all. Those > entailments may be perfectly fine in an application that has no need to > distinguish between Moby Dick and a function. > >> >> I'm not saying it's a useless idea, or not predictive, or that we >> shouldn't talk about it. I'm just asking everyone to stop calling >> these things definitions and start calling them what they are. As >> Nathan has pointed out, Roy's paper has three mutually inconsistent >> "definitions" of "resource". The paper makes much more sense if you >> just treat the function "definition" as a mistake: He should have said >> something like "We can model resources as functions ..." and you >> (David) should do something similar. > > It sounds like you're using the word "definition" in a highly > specialized way. I was using it in the generic English sense. I think > you may need to cut me (and others) some slack here if we're not using > the term in the specialized sense that you want. Or at least tell us > exactly how you want the term used. I'm not being the least bit technical. Take the following two statements to the common man in the street, T. C. Mits: An information resource is a kind of function. The novel _Moby Dick_ is an information resource. If they know what a function is, they will think you're talking nonsense. I'd be happy to perform the experiment if you like. I'm at MIT and many people here know what a function is and have at least some idea of what _Moby Dick_ is. Jonathan
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 21:20:15 UTC