- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:10:37 +0100
- To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Hello Chris,
<snip/
> SW> How is that different from saying that the nature of the resource
is
> 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
Basel
> 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
a
> >>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'.
Stuart
--
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004OctDec/0
025.html
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 10:11:11 UTC