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

> "Document" is a place we have been before. It suffers from some problems.=
> ...
> 
> 1) Resource-ful and Respresentation senses of use.
> 
> 2) Concrete or concpetual - from the current editors draft:
> 
> "However, our use of the term resource is intentionally more broad. Other
> things, such as cars and dogs (and, if you=92ve printed this document on
> physical sheets of paper, the artifact that you are holding in your hand)=
> ,
> are resources too. They are not information resources, however, because
> their essence is not information."
> 
> I think may would consider the printed paper artifact a "document".

Yes, although that's also true of "Information Resource".   Maybe the
best option is "Web Document".

> 3) As an alternate for "resource" or "information resource" it is not=20
> reflective of the possibility that whilst the representation may be=20
> document like, the resource itself need not be.
> eg. a robot arm.

I don't buy that.  A robot arm is certainly not an Information
Resource; it has very useful non-information qualities, like being
able to pick things up!  The arm may have an document-like interface
however, which is on the web, has a URI, ... and is an Information
Resource / Web Document.  If someone makes the mistake of thinking one
of those interface documents is the arm, make a second one which
behaves differently.  They are usefully different resources, even
though there is only one arm.

> I also think that we should avoid taxonomising... "information resource"=20
> takes one step in that direction as does "web resource" - and I can see=20
> both defn's are intentionally different such that defining both gives us=20
> four boxes to think about... and I can see the ground beginning to slip=20
> away....

I think I'll dress up as an ontology for halloween, so I can really scare
people.   :-)

       -- sandro

Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 15:47:47 UTC