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

Re: Towards a precise, reliable definition of "information resource"

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4177B5AF.7010308@hp.com>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Hello Patrick,

This doesn't seem entirely consistent with:


> I am not satisfied with this outcome, but I also do not intend to 
> consume more of my own time in this matter. My concerns are a matter 
> of public record. I leave it to the TAG to decide whether to reflect 
> any of the actual progress made in online discussions in the actual 
> text of AWWW, or to leave the issue unresolved.

or more recently (abeit with stated preconditions)  from 

> The inclusion of the definition of "information resource" (albeit 
> imperfect) is reasonable, as the mere presence of a definition of such 
> a class of resources does not, or at least should not, imply that the 
> range of resources which http: URIs (or any other form of URI) can 
> identify is constrained solely to such a class of "information 
> resources". (though, IMO, the definition could be completely omitted 
> without AWWW incuring any notable loss of utility or coherence)

This thread has grown long, folks are tired and need space to think (for 
themselves). Please let them have it.



Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>Leaving all issues about the necessity, utility, and
>significance of defining a class of "information resources"
>aside, I recommend to the TAG that it adopt a similar
>approach as employed by RDF Core WG regarding the use of 
>test cases to facilitate capturing concensus, by constructing
>two lists: one that contains examples of resources that are 
>agreed to be information resources, and one that contains
>examples of resources that are agreed not to be information
>I think a total of 20-25 resources per list should be sufficient.
>The definition of the class "information resource" would
>then be expressed/refined so that all agree that it reflects 
>precisely the partitioning of those two lists.
>Those two lists could (or should) be included in whatever
>document officially presents that definition (not necessarily,
>even if likely, AWWW) to reinforce the meaning of the
>Furthermore, each resource in those two lists could be linked
>to discussion about why it is or is not an information resource.
>Thus, if someone wonders if some resource is an information 
>resource, and they are not sure based on the text of the
>definition, they can look at those two lists and see which
>resources in those two lists most closely correspond to the 
>resource in question and perhaps deduce a reasonably reliable 
>answer to their question by such a comparison.
>Patrick Stickler
>Nokia, Finland
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 13:12:24 UTC

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