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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Norman Walsh
> Sent: 18 October, 2004 20:58
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]
> 
> 
> / Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com was heard to say:
> | Thus, a dog could be an information resource, since the essential
> | traits, qualities, and properties of the dog could be communicated 
> | in a message.
> 
> Are there any resources that are not information resources then?

Let us be clear about whether we are talking about the class of 
resources that I think we all are in general agreement about, versus
the class of resources defined by a particular definition, which
is ambiguous.

I myself do *not* consider that a dog is an information resource.

I do not think that any member of the TAG considers that a dog
could be an information resource.

However, the language of both of the last two definitions for
information resource presented in a draft of AWWW allow for valid
(and IMO not particularly skewed) interpretations which would support
the conclusion that a dog could be considered an information resource.

My concerns have never been with the definition of the term
"information resource" per se, or with what seems to be a fairly
well established concensus about what can or cannot be an 
"information resource", but with the clarity and precision of
the definition itself.

While eloquence can be seen as a desirable trait for written
documents, in this case, I think we'd be best off with a clunky,
albeit brutally precise and unambiguous definition, that captures
the key points. E.g.

"An information resource is an identifiable body of information
such that its entire substance can be transferred in a message."

Or some such wording.

A set of "test cases" could be useful, comprised of two sets,
those that are information resources and those that are not,
and folks can first agree on the division of those two sets
of examples, and then decide whether the definition reliably
and unambiguously partitions those resources correctly. (and
those two partitioned sets of examples could be included in
some appendix, to reinforce the definition and discussion 
provided in the text).

Regards,

Patrick


> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> -- 
> Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun 
> Microsystems, Inc.
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
> prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 07:13:24 UTC