- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:47:59 +0300
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Leaving all issues about the necessity, utility, and significance of defining a class of "information resources" aside, I recommend to the TAG that it adopt a similar approach as employed by RDF Core WG regarding the use of test cases to facilitate capturing concensus, by constructing two lists: one that contains examples of resources that are agreed to be information resources, and one that contains examples of resources that are agreed not to be information resources. I think a total of 20-25 resources per list should be sufficient. The definition of the class "information resource" would then be expressed/refined so that all agree that it reflects precisely the partitioning of those two lists. Those two lists could (or should) be included in whatever document officially presents that definition (not necessarily, even if likely, AWWW) to reinforce the meaning of the definition. Furthermore, each resource in those two lists could be linked to discussion about why it is or is not an information resource. Thus, if someone wonders if some resource is an information resource, and they are not sure based on the text of the definition, they can look at those two lists and see which resources in those two lists most closely correspond to the resource in question and perhaps deduce a reasonably reliable answer to their question by such a comparison. Regards, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 12:48:50 UTC