Re: terminology question - generic resource

Hi Jonathan,

On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 13:29 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Regarding http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/20110517/
> 
> The definition of 'information resource' in AWWW is very different
> from the definition of 'generic information entity' in my memo (which
> is based on
> 'generic resource' in Tim's memo
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html ). Alan R has advised that
> it would be very confusing to apply the label 'information resource'
> to the latter. It is tempting to do so, in order to "correct" or
> subvert AWWW and httpRange-14. However I am tempted to do as Alan
> suggests and not reuse the label 'information resource'. I have a
> second motivation in that I recently heard someone (you know who you
> are) use this term specifically in the AWWW sense, so perhaps the AWWW
> sense is more meaningful than I thought it was, making the retention
> of the label 'information resource' important.
> 
> So I propose to remove "information resource" from a future version of
> the memo and replace it with "generic resource". This could also
> affect the issue-57 document as well.
> 
> I don't particular like "generic resource" as it says nothing about
> the information or document nature of the thing, but I would use it
> because it is out there, and I hate inventing. "Generic information
> entity" is really awkward and I only meant for it to exist internally
> to the memo.
> 
> Any thoughts on this editorial change? Pro? Con?



Your message prompted me to re-read the document:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/20110517/

I think this document presents a very good way of thinking about what
the AWWW calls an "information resource", and I think it should be used
as the basis for replacing the current (flawed) definition of
"information resource" in AWWW at
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-information-resource 

With that in mind, I think it is easier to read the document if it uses
the term "information resource", rather than using the term "generic
information entity" throughout and forcing the reader to mentally
translate that to "information resource" all the time.  However, if the
term "information resource" is used throughout the document, it is
important to acknowledge the difference in definition from the one given
in AWWW.  Such acknowledgement is already made (to an extent) in section
3, but it may be worth adding a phrase or sentence to acknowledge this
difference more explicitly and to suggest that this definition is
proposed as a replacement for the one in AWWW.  In fact, I think that
would be a good goal for this document, and should be stated front and
center.

I do not think that the term "generic resource" would be an improvement,
for the reasons that you stated.

Other suggested editorial changes, while you're editing the document:

1. Something seems to be wrong with this sentence: 
[[
It will be useful to have a term to apply in the situation where
metadata does not explicitly specify a particular subject, so define a
"metadata predicate" to be metadata of this sort.
]]
It doesn't make sense to me to define a predicate to be metadata.  That
seems like a category error.  To my mind, a predicate is used in making
a statement, and the *statement* may be metadata, but a predicate by
itself is not metadata.  It needs a subject (or multiple subjects)
(i.e., it needs to be *about* something) in order to make metadata.

Also, in talking about "the situation where metadata does not explicitly
specify a particular subject", I think it would be clearer to say "the
situation where metadata applies to multiple subjects", as the sentence
prior suggests, when it says: "The same metadata may apply to multiple
information entities".

Therefore, I suggest rephrasing that sentence as:
[[
It will be useful to have a term to apply in the situation where
metadata applies to multiple subjects, so define a "metadata predicate"
to be a predicate that is used to express metadata of this sort.
]]

2. In section 3 where the document says:
[[
The following defines what it means for an information resource to be
"on the Web" at a given URI: 

        G is "on the Web" at U means that U's authorized representations
        are exactly those representations that G generalizes.
]]
I think it would be helpful to say what G and U are, such as:
[[
The following defines what it means for an information resource G to be
"on the Web" at a given URI U: 

        G is "on the Web" at U means that U's authorized representations
        are exactly those representations that G generalizes.
]]

Thanks!

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 14:58:54 UTC