Re: NIR SIDETRACK Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 4/1/12 4:35 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> hi all
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:53:03PM +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
>> maybe I made an error by assuming that the term IR is inherent in the term
>> representation - by assuming that a NIR cannot have a representation, only
>> descriptions ?
> No. The whole point about the use of the term IR in HR14 seems to be to say:
>
> Everything that has a representation has a representation that conveys it's
> essential characteristics.
>
> Is this important ? If yes, should we write it this way ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brunnbauer
>

Aren't we somehow losing the fundamental fact that all resources on the 
Web are supposed to be bear self-describing content, constrained by mime 
type. That when all is said and done, irrespective of mime type, all Web 
resources are Information Resources.

The above gels nicely with the fact that all content bears 
representation of something the provides information to appropriate 
systems, courtesy of the mime type component of this content+mime-type 
composite.

The content of a basic HTML web page, an RDF document, OWL and RDFs 
documents all bear content that deliver information. Of course, within 
specific system realms such as RDF, Linked Data, and the Semantic Web, 
the content represents a more specific kind of information in the form 
of descriptions and definitions --  at least, in the eyes of systems 
(clients and servers) for said realms.


-- 

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