RE: "information resource"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext 
> Sent: 21 September, 2004 13:15
> To: skw@hp.com
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: "information resource"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Stuart. I find the proposed changes acceptable. And also
> encourage the inclusion of the optional text of #3 below.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
> > Sent: 21 September, 2004 12:40
> > To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> > Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: "information resource"
> > 
> > 
> > Patrick,
> > 
> > Yesterday the TAG discussed [3] a proposal [2]  to address 
> > your comment 
> > [1] which I repeat below, slightly amended. The TAG asked me 
> > to give it 
> > a wider airing by re-posting on www-tag.
> > 
> > Proposal:
> > 
> > 1) Replace all occurences of the noun phrase "information 
> > resource" with 
> > the noun phrase "web resource".
> > 
> > 2) Replace the defining sentence for the noun phrase "information 
> > resource" (section 3.1 1st para, 1st sentence) :
> > 
> >  "The term Information Resource refers to resources that convey 
> > information. Any resource that has a representation is an 
> information 
> > resource."
> > 
> > with
> > 
> >  "The term Web Resource is applicable to resources for which web 
> > acesssible representations are available and/or which may be 
> > interacted 
> > with through an exchange of representations. Any resource 
> that has a 
> > representation is an information resource."

Oops. Sorry. I missed this change from the earlier proposal.

Did you mean to have here "... Any resource that has a representation
is a web resource".

???


> > 
> > 3) [Optional]  Consider adding a nearby sentence: 
> "Colloquially, Web 
> > Resources are said to be "on-the-web"."
> > 
> > Best regards
> > 
> > Stuart Williams
> > -- 
> > [1]  
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> > 04JulSep/0047.html 
> > 
> > [2] 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> > 04JulSep/0086.html
> > [3] 
> > http://www.w3.org/mid/36BA0C62-0B7F-11D9-946B-000393753936@gbiv.com
> > 
> > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > 
> > >  
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> > >>[mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > >>ext Stuart Williams
> > >>Sent: 09 September, 2004 17:19
> > >>To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> > >>Cc: michael@neonym.net; www-tag@w3.org
> > >>Subject: Re: "information resource"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Hello Patrick,
> > >>
> > >>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
> > >>>>Sent: 09 September, 2004 13:09
> > >>>>To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); michael@neonym.net
> > >>>>Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> > >>>>Subject: RE: "information resource"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>   
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>The fact that both I and TimBL come to different conclusions 
> > >>>>>based on the same document indicates that there is a problem 
> > >>>>>with the definition of "information resource".
> > >>>>>     
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>          
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>I think that the document takes no position on whether or 
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>not an HTTP
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>URI such as the one you cite may or may not be used to 
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>denote/identify
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>an actual dog.
> > >>>>   
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>>Per the literal reading, no. My concern was about the potential
> > >>>for reading additional meaning into AWWW based on the choice
> > >>>of words for the term "information resource", beyond its actual
> > >>>definition.
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>Ok... so it is not what the document actually says that 
> > troubles you, 
> > >>but the potential for folks to read more deeply than intended 
> > >>into the 
> > >>concept currently labelled "information resource". Is that a 
> > >>fair summary?
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>>My proposal is, and has been, that either the distinction/term
> > >>>is not needed, or that a different term (label) be associated
> > >>>with that distinction/definition.
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>So... would a different label for the concept, assuming we 
> > >>find one that 
> > >>met with general approval, address your original comment 
> > [1] to your 
> > >>satisfaction? ie. the concept stays, but we give it a 
> > >>different label .
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes.
> > > 
> > >  
> > >
> > >>I think that you are saying here and below that it would - 
> > >>although it's 
> > >>clear that you would prefer that no distinction were made.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Or that, the distinction is so fundamental that no special
> > >term is needed.
> > >
> > >It is enough, I think, to simply make clear the distinction
> > >between resources in general versus resources which have
> > >web accessible representations, and that the web machinery
> > >is only concerned with the latter. Once you make that distinction,
> > >nothing more need be said.
> > >
> > >Though, I'm also not opposed to a distinct term to refer to
> > >the class of resources having web accessible representations.
> > >
> > >Applying KISS, it seems that either "web resource" or 
> > >"web accessible resource" would be the most obvious choices
> > >(the former being more concise, and hence more convenient).
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>>The use of the words "information resource" can be construed
> > >>>as implicitly supporting TimBL's position rather than taking
> > >>>a neutral stance pending resolution of httpRange-14.
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>Apart from the choice of label for the concept we have currently 
> > >>labelled "information resource"... is there anything else 
> > >>that you have 
> > >>found in the document that could be construed as an implicit 
> > >>resolution 
> > >>of httpRange-14?
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Not that I would be inclined to make a case about.
> > >
> > >The discussion of "secondary resources" has the potential
> > >for fueling that debate, but I have nothing against the
> > >definition of such a class of resources, on a technical
> > >basis, nor with the way that class is defined and presented
> > >in AWWW.
> > >
> > >There may be dragons lurking in there somewhere, but I
> > >can't say I can point one out ;-)
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>>My explicit proposal would be to replace the words 
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>"information resource"
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>with either "web resource" or "web accessible resource" which IMO
> > >>>would coincide more precisely with the actual definition and not
> > >>>potentially imply any position relating to httpRange-14.
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>This again suggests, well more than suggests, that a change 
> > in label 
> > >>could address the comment to your satisfaction.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >It would. And I would hope that that is also clear from my 
> > >original post.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >><snip/>
> > >>
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>>The TAG needs to make a decision on this issue.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Either "resources" (a) can be anything that can be 
> > >>>>>          
> > >>>>>
> > >>named, including
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>>abstract concepts, astrological bodies, persons, etc. and URIs
> > >>>>>can denote anything or (b) they must be constrained to 
> > >>>>>          
> > >>>>>
> > >>things that
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>>correspond to "bodies of information" which can be 
> expressed in a
> > >>>>>digital form accessible via the web, and URIs can denote 
> > >>>>>          
> > >>>>>
> > >>only such
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>>bodies of information.
> > >>>>>          
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>AWWW has taken a position on that. AWWW says:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>"We do not limit the scope of what might be a resource. 
> The term 
> > >>>>"resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be 
> > >>>>identified 
> > >>>>by a URI."
> > >>>>
> > >>>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
> > >>>>   
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>>I appreciate the literal wording of AWWW on this matter. I'm 
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>concerned
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>simply with implicit meaning or potential interpretations which
> > >>>extend beyond the literal wording.
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>A natural problem with natural language...
> > >>
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>This particular post to which you are replying is as much 
> > a response
> > >>>to TimBL's interpretation of the term "information 
> > resource" per AWWW
> > >>>as to the potential for confusion about the meaning of this term.
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>I understand that, and TimBL has been challenged by others 
> > to support 
> > >>his interpretation by reference to the document itself. There 
> > >>may be a 
> > >>separate thread to be had on that topic (and I suspect 
> you can find 
> > >>several ready made such threads in this archive :-)) but 
> > the topic in 
> > >>hand on this thread is or should be about what if 
> anything needs to 
> > >>change in the document to satisfactorally address your comment.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Agreed. I am happy to restrict this thread to the issue of the
> > >choice of label for the concept in question, and not to deeper
> > >issues relating to httpRange-14 or other matters.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>>>>The latest draft of AWWW still attempts to accomodate both
> > >>>>>views, leaving far too much to interpretation -- and
> > >>>>>perpetuating the present chaos by allowing those 
> holding view (a)
> > >>>>>and those holding view (b) to both reference the same document
> > >>>>>as supposedly supporting their view/interpretation and 
> > >>>>>          
> > >>>>>
> > >>use the same
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>>terms as defined by that document -- yet *still* in actuality
> > >>>>>disagree about critically fundamental aspects of web 
> > >>>>>          
> > >>>>>
> > >>architecture.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>AFAICT tell AWWWW clearly takes position (a) above. Can 
> > you show me 
> > >>>>something in the document that advances position (b)?
> > >>>>   
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>>The choice of the words "information resource" as the 
> label for the
> > >>>term used to differentiate web accessible resources from 
> resources
> > >>>in general.
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>So again, a different term label has potential to address 
> > >>your comment?
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Patrick
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 10:31:40 UTC