Re: Request for Review of TAG AWWW 2nd LC Draft.

>Hello Pat,
>
>In response to a comment from Patrick Stickler 
>[1] and the ensuring discussion of proposals to 
>revise the definition of Information Resources 
>given in the 2nd last-call draft, the TAG 
>reached concensus on a revised definition of the 
>term Information Resource. The revised 
>definition now appears in-line in section "2.2 
>URI/Resource Relationship" [2 ] rather than by 
>forward reference to section 3.1. The revised 
>definition is quoted below.
>
><quote>
>2.2. URI/Resource Relationships
>
>By design a URI identifies one resource. We do 
>not limit the scope of what might be a resource. 
>The term "resource" is used in a general sense 
>for whatever might be identified by a URI. It is 
>conventional on the hypertext web to describe 
>web pages, images, product catalogs, etc. as 
>³resources². The distinguishing characteristic 
>of these resources is that all of their 
>essential characteristics can be conveyed in a 
>message. We identify this set as ³information 
>resources².
>
>This document is an example of an information 
>resource. It consists of words and punctuation 
>symbols and graphics and other artifacts that 
>can be encoded, with varying degrees of 
>fidelity, into a sequence of bits. There is 
>nothing about the essential information content 
>of this document that cannot in principle be 
>transfered in a representation.
>
>However, our use of the term resource is 
>intentionally more broad. Other things, such as 
>cars and dogs (and, if you¹ve printed this 
>document on physical sheets of paper, the 
>artifact that you are holding in your hand), are 
>resources too. They are not information 
>resources, however, because their essence is not 
>information. Although it is possible to describe 
>a great many things about a car or a dog in a 
>sequence of bits, the sum of those things will 
>invariably be an approximation of the essential 
>character of the resource.
>
>We define the term ³information resource² 
>because we observe that it is useful in 
>discussions of web technology and may be useful 
>in constructing specifications for facilities 
>built for use on the web.
></quote>
>
>Given your response below, please can you 
>indicate whether this revised definition alters 
>your "acceptance" of our previous changes as "an 
>adequate response to [your] original objection." 
>If possible we would appreciate an indication 
>from you before our next telcon on 18th October.

No, it does not alter my earlier acceptance as an 
adequate response. It is a step forward to have 
the distinction made this clearly. Thanks.

Pat


>Many thanks,
>
>Stuart Williams
>On behalf of W3C TAG
>--
>[1] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0047.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#id-resources
>
>Stuart Williams wrote:
>
>>
>>At Pats request I am fowarding the content of a 
>>message I received from him in response to my 
>>request that he review our 2nd LC WD.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Stuart
>>--
>>----Original Message-----
>>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
>>Sent: 28 September 2004 21:50
>>To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
>>Subject: Re: Request for Review of TAG AWWW 2nd LC Draft.
>>
>>Stuart, greetings and apologies for the 
>>lateness of this reply. (I could plead 
>>mitigating circumstances, but I was already 
>>late when Ivan came.) I know time is tight and 
>>I have no right to hold things up any longer. 
>>Although I am still not entirely happy, for W3C 
>>procedural purposes you may register my 
>>acceptance of this as an adequate response to 
>>my original objection. Stop reading at this 
>>point if you like.
>>
>>The document is greatly improved and I can now 
>>understand it coherently, and I appreciate the 
>>work that must have gone into getting it into 
>>this state. However, it is still ambiguous in a 
>>few places, most notably in sections 2.2 (which 
>>is blatantly circular and misuses terminology 
>>in confusing ways) . In particular, the 
>>sections you cite in your message seem to 
>>indicate that you intend the unqualified use of 
>>the word 'resource' to be the wide sense (my 
>>'D' in the C/D contrast, i.e. anything that may 
>>be referred to), whereas the bulk of the text 
>>in the document seems to imply rather clearly 
>>that you have in mind the narrower C sense, in 
>>particular where the text remarks or presumes 
>>without explicit comment that resources have 
>>states and can be accessed by Web protocols. 
>>Section 2.2.3 seems to be a sketch/draft of a 
>>way to resolve this tension quite nicely, but 
>>the idea is not developed.
>>
>>The central example has been re-worded very 
>>nicely to make its meaning clear (the resource 
>>is the on-line weather report) but it is still 
>>not clear if the analogous alternative example, 
>>where the resource would be the actual weather, 
>>would be a valid example: certainly the quote 
>>from section 2.2 seems to suggest this; but 
>>much of the rest of the discussion in the text 
>>seems inconsistent with it.
>>
>>The remark that this document is not intended 
>>to cover all SWeb uses is very helpful, and I 
>>think was a wise insertion, and the 
>>clarification of the meaning of 
>>'representation' is good.
>>
>>Rather than produce another vast email, I have 
>>annotated the text with comments drawing 
>>attention to the places where this ambiguity 
>>seems to still arise, and making a few other 
>>comments, most of them reiterations of points I 
>>made when commenting on the earlier draft. The 
>>result is at
>>
>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/2004-PatHayesComments.html
>>
>>in case it might be useful.
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>A few editorial matters you might want to check:
>>
>>In Sec 2.3 'URI' is used as a plural, elsewhere 'URIs' is used.
>>
>>Section 2.6 talks of 'some view on representations' What does this mean?
>>
>>Section 3.3.1, second paragraph seems to have 
>>some elision at the end (may be only a missing 
>>period)
>>
>>Is an interaction unsafe if the agent is AT 
>>RISK of incurring an obligation, or only in the 
>>case where the obligation is in fact incurred? 
>>The glossary implies the latter but I think the 
>>former is intended.
>>
>>>Pat,
>>>
>>>The TAG has been working to address some of the concerns that you raised in
>>>[1] in response to our 1st last call on the the AWWW document [2].
>>>
>>>In particular, we now explicitly state that "We do not limit the scope of
>>>what might be a resource", and we introduce a term for the class of
>>>resources that can be interacted with via an exchange of representations -
>>>"information resources". This is an attempt to resolve the 'C'/'D' sense
>>>ambiguities in the use of terms that you identify.
>>>
>>>A couple of extracts from the now 2nd LC draft [2] below.
>>>
>>>We would appreciate your review of this draft and an indication of whether
>>>you feel we have addressed the comments you made in [1].
>>>
>>>Best regards
>>>
>>>Stuart Williams
>>>On Behalf of W3C TAG
>>>--
>>>[1]
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1057.
>>>html
>>>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/
>>>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/
>>>
>>>"2.2. URI/Resource Relationships
>>>
>>>By design a URI identifies one resource. We do not limit the scope of what
>>>might be a resource. The term "resource" is used in a general sense for
>>>whatever might be identified by a URI. A significant class of resources,
>>>information resources, are discussed in Information Resources and
>>>Representations [section 3.1]."
>>>
>>>and
>>>"3.1. Information Resources and Representations
>>>The term Information Resource refers to resources that convey information.
>>>Any resource that has a representation is an information resource. A
>>>representation consists logically of two parts: data (expressed in one or
>>>more formats used separately or in combination) and metadata (such as the
>>>Internet media type of the data)."


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 14:07:35 UTC