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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
> Sent: 21 October, 2004 16:12
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Towards a precise, reliable definition of "information
> resource"
> 
> 
> Hello Patrick,
> 
> This doesn't seem entirely consistent with:
> 
> From:  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> 04OctDec/0097.html
> 
> > 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.

Well, we all get tired of this seemingly endless debate, and my
additional comments were in direct response to Noah regarding
a neutral position about issue httpRange-14. Furthermore, even if
there are no further modifications to the definition of 
"information resource", I still think it would be greatly beneficial
for readers of AWWW (and for the TAG) to produce and agree on such
a pair of lists. It seems the only reason why most/all parties
concerned appear to agree on what actually is an information resource
is based on the examples presented of what folks think can or cannot
be an information resource. Therefore, if that has been the true key
to achieving clarity and concensus, it should be encorporated into
the TAGs presentation.

Consider it a "parting suggestion" insofar as the definition of
"information resource" is concerned.

> or more recently (abeit with stated preconditions)  from 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> 04OctDec/0097.html
> 
> > 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 

IMO, my comments to Noah regarding the adoption of a neutral stance
regarding this issue is precisely to enable AWWW to mature and stabilize
while allowing this issue to be put, as Noah suggests, on the back
burner -- so that folks can return to it at a later time when they
can apply more energy and experience to its resolution.

> (for 
> themselves). 

Tut tut, I'm sure that all members of the TAG are more than capable
of thinking for themselves, regardless of my input. 

> Please let them have it.

I'm trying to. 

To the degree that further editorial changes to AWWW truly reflect
a neutral position on issue httpRange-14, I will not likely be
motivated to readdress this issue to the TAG insofar as AWWW is 
concerned.

Regards,

Patrick

 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stuart
> --
> 
> 
> 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
> >resources.
> >
> >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
> >definition.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Patrick
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Patrick Stickler
> >Nokia, Finland
> >patrick.stickler@nokia.com
> > 
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 06:18:33 UTC