W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: on documents and terms [was: RE: [WNET] new proposal WN URIs and related issues]

From: David Wood <dwood@softwarememetics.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:06:30 -0400
Message-Id: <CB61DAD0-10D4-4AEC-BB1F-F41239B47A38@softwarememetics.com>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "Guus Schreiber" <guus@few.vu.nl>, "Steve Pepper" <pepper@ontopia.net>, "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>

Hi all,

This message contains my /personal/ opinions on this discussion.

On 20 Apr2006, at 17:40, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>> From:  Pat Hayes
>>
>> It might be best to start with a definition of what you consider an
>> information resource to be. Since the TAG do not define this critical
>> term, yet base important engineering decisions on it, any
>> authoritative exposition would be of immense value. My current
>> understanding is that an information resource is some thing that can
>> be transmitted over a network by a transfer protocol. On this
>> understanding, one could argue that a word was an information
>> resource.
>
> Definitely not.  That would be a "representation", not an "information
> resource".  The information resource is the *source* of
> "representations" that can be transmitted over a network.
>
> I have also been struggling with trying to guess what the TAG meant an
> "information resource" to be, or more notably, what the TAG meant  
> it to
> exclude.  FWIW, here is my proposed working definition of the day:
>
> 	An information resource is all and only a logical HTTP
> 	endpoint that is intended to serve representations with
> 	a 2xx response code.
>
> Note that:
>
> 	- If something is never intended to return a 2xx response
> 	code then it is not an information resource.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the relationship between a 2xx  
response and an information resource was intended to be defined as  
commutative (or inverse functional) by [8].

> 	- It is "logical", not physical.
>
> 	- It is "all and only" because it does NOT include anything
> 	else that might be attached to that information resource.
>
> By this definition, a resource that is an "information resource"  
> cannot
> also be any other kind of resource.  This means, for example, that an
> information resource cannot also be a person or Dan's car.   
> However, it
> could be a part of Dan's car, or it could be associated with a person.
>
>> . . .
>>> To be specific, [8] tells us that the URIs we choose for each of the
>>> WordNet synsets, word senses, and words MUST be served with
>>> a 303 See Other response.
>>
>> [8] does not use the word MUST, and again, I suggest that it would be
>> a serious, indeed disastrous, error, to interpret it this strongly.
>
> I think you're quibbling here.  The difference between RFC2119 terms
> "SHOULD" and "MUST" is that "SHOULD" permits exceptions to a general
> rule in particular circumstances, whereas "MUST" does not.  But you  
> seem
> to be arguing against the general rule -- not for an exception.

I do not think that Pat was quibbling at all.  Perhaps he comments  
are worth another read.

Please note that a 303 response may be returned for any kind of  
resource, including information resources.

Regards,
Dave

--
http://prototypo.blogspot.com
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 22:06:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:19 UTC