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

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

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:05:12 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A56471DE@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <chris@w3.org>, <skw@hp.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Chris Lilley
> Sent: 14 October, 2004 21:11
> To: Stuart Williams
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]
> On Thursday, October 14, 2004, 6:59:14 PM, Stuart wrote:
> SW> Chris Lilley wrote:
> >>Currently, we have the notion of something whose entire essence is
> >>digitally conveyable (eg a particular edition of an etext) 
> and something
> >>which clearly has information, but whose essence can only 
> be measured or
> >>approximated without conveying its entirety (a dog, a book in the
> >>abstract without mentioning edition or translation).
> >>  
> >>
> 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 defn
> SW> a dog is *not* an (Basel defn) "Information Resource".
> Correct. I would like it to remain so.

The intended meaning of my proposed text would have the
dog NOT be an information resource, but e.g. the dog's
veterinary record WOULD be an information resource.

Both the dog, and the dog's veterinary record would be
resources, and both may be identified by a URI, and both
may be web resources -- such that both URIs resolve to
one or more representation.

The key distinction between them, here, is that the vet.
record is an information resource, being a body of information,
but the dog is not an information resource, as it is not
a body of information.

But the fact that the dog itself is not an information 
resource does not preclude it being a web resource, and
for there to be representations of that dog accessible
on the web via its URI.

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

No. The dog would not be an information resource.

I'm not sure how you get that out of my proposed text.

Can you quote the particular text that seems to suggest that
a dog would be an information resource, per my definition?

Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 08:11:02 UTC

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