- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@smiy.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:04 +0200
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 10/20/2011 01:54 PM, Nathan wrote: > Norman Gray wrote: >> Ugh: 'IR' and 'NIR' are ugly obscurantist terms (though reasonable in >> their original context). Wouldn't 'Bytes' and 'Thing', respectively, >> be better (says he, plaintively)? > > Both are misleading, since NIR is the set of all things, and IR is a > proper subset of NIR, it doesn't make much sense to label it "non > information resource(s)" when it does indeed contain information > resources. From that perspective "IR" and "R" makes somewhat more sense. > +1 See also: http://infoserviceonto.smiy.org/2010/11/25/on-resources-information-resources-and-documents/ ;) Cheers, Bo PS: also +1 for Content-Location header + people expect to get some information when resolving a URI
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 10:04:41 UTC