- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:44:10 -0700
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>, <msabin@milessabin.com>, <tbray@textuality.com>
> > Conversely, what harm is caused by saying that it isn't
> > (yet) a resource?
> case, the concept adds little but confusion to our explanation of URIs
> and the Web.
At some point, and for some scenarios, it makes sense to have words that
can distinguish between:
B. "things which have been named"
C. "things which have not been named"
D. "things which have not been named but nevertheless have been
described"
For example, these distinctions can be useful when teaching grammar and
logic. However, I think that such distinctions are confusing when used
gratuitously. Unless there is a necessity to distinguish between those
types of "things", then it's better to just use the non-restricted
definition, and then introduce new terms when you absolutely need to
distinguish between different types of "things". We normally do not
make such distinctions in normal communication ("I went to the store and
bought some things, but only things which have names, although the
subcomponents of those things may not have names..."). If you start
making such distinctions, people are bound to ask "why?", and start to
ascribe unwarranted significance to the distinction, as we saw in the
previous wording of the resource definition.
Received on Monday, 24 May 2004 17:44:20 UTC