W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

RE: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:10:37 +0100
Message-ID: <8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9396CD9@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Hello Chris, 

> SW> How is that different from saying that the nature of the resource
> SW> information?
> Something whose nature is not, exclusively or even mainly, 
> information can have information associated with it. A body 
> of information, even. Its a vague and all inclusive term so I don't
like it.
> SW> I'm confused by your reference to a dog here...I think by our
> SW> defn a dog is *not* an (Basel defn) "Information Resource".
> Correct. I would like it to remain so.

Ok... I think that is where Patrick is too.

> >>To take an example, a resource for my fictional dog might return as
> >>representation its veterinary records (blood test results and so on)
> >>clearly a body of information, and clearly not conveying the entire 
> >>essence of the dog.
> >>
> SW> A "resource for my fictional dog"... are we speaking of one or two

> SW> resources here?
> One.
> SW> Are you arguing that the dog is or is not an IR?
> I'm arguing that the dog resource would in Patrick's 
> definition be an IR because it has a body of information (its 
This is not Patricks defn!

> medical records) but should not be an IR (per Basel def.).

Patricks defn is: "An "information resource" is a resource which
constitutes a body of information."

Deeper in his message [1] he says "Why not simply state that an
"information resource" *is*
information -- i.e. a body of information???"

I take him be using the word 'constitutes' in the sense of 'is'.

Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 10:11:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:06 UTC