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

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

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:38:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4176BE9C.1040309@eircom.net>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
>>ext Norman Walsh
>>Sent: 18 October, 2004 20:22
>>To: www-tag@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]
>>It happens that my dog is sleeping in my lap as I type this. I don't
>>think anyone could convey everything that is essential about my dog in
>>a message. There are characteristics of mass and texture and warmth
>>and affection that are not essentially information.
> Exactly. I.e. it is not possible to *transfer* all of the *fundamental substance*
> of your dog in a message, therefore your dog is not an "information resource".

That doesn't help  - '*fundamental substance*' is undefined; I 
contend the definition is not easily captured.  I myself do not know 
whether a dog could be an information resource:


Can someone clarify what is lost when the concept of information 
resource is taken away? Or what is gained when it is present?

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2004 19:38:41 UTC

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