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 11:22:37 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A56471E2@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: 15 October, 2004 21:06
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]
> On Friday, October 15, 2004, 12:10:37 PM, Bristol) wrote:
> >> I'm arguing that the dog resource would in Patrick's 
> >> definition be an IR because it has a body of information (its 
> WSHLB>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> WSHLB> This is not Patricks defn!
> >> medical records) but should not be an IR (per Basel def.).
> WSHLB> Patricks defn is: "An "information resource" is a 
> resource which
> WSHLB> constitutes a body of information."
> WSHLB> Deeper in his message [1] he says "Why not simply state that an
> WSHLB> "information resource" *is*
> WSHLB> information -- i.e. a body of information???"
> WSHLB> I take him be using the word 'constitutes' in the 
> sense of 'is'.
> If it means "is" in the sense of "is solely" then its the same as the
> basel definition.

Yes. In the sense that I *think* that's what was meant by
the Basel definition.

But the language proposed, coming out of the Basel definition,
still IMO allowed for a broader definition that could be seen
to be as broad as the previous definition. My proposed text
was an attempt to narrow the definition to what I *thought*
was meant, while avoiding what I saw as a plausible, but
unacceptable, interpretation.

Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 08:23:40 UTC

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