RE: "information resource"

[[
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:24:23 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206718@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: 'Stuart Williams' <skw@hp.com> 

I think of it in the traditional sense of "ontological 
commitment" per Thomas Gruber.

"An ontology should require the minimal ontological 
commitment sufficient to support the intended knowledge 
sharing activities... Since ontological commitment is based 
on consistent use of vocabulary, ontological commitment can 
be minimized by specifying the weakest theory (allowing 
the most models) and defining only those terms which are 
essential to the communication of knowledge consistent 
with that theory."
]]

[[
From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:46:00 +0100
Message-ID: <41517408.3060604@hp.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>

I think what some others feel is lost from 
the proposal I made is the notion of a class of resource which 
"conveys information".
]]

I find that these two excerpts shine a bright light on what I 
have seen as the crux of the discussion regarding the term
"information resource" versus "web resource", which comes down
to where the line is drawn between the web and semantic web
layers.

There are those who would like to see more semantics about
resources defined at the web layer, reflecting the usage and user
perceptions of the web as a vehicle of information interchange,
in particular the definition of class of resources corresponding
to bodies of information, i.e. "information resources".

There are others who see such definitions as not critical to the
operation and use of the web layer, specifically, but rather feel
that such a definitions would be better expressed using the machinery
specifically designed for such purposes at the semantic web layer.

I find Thomas Gruber's excellent words about minimizing ontological
commitment to strongly favor this latter alternative; which I feel
is effectively captured in Stuart's recently proposed text, per

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0151.html

which reflects the optimal and minimal ontological commitment that
should be made in this matter, at the web layer specifically
(which I understand to be the specific scope of focus of AWWW).

That said, I also consider myself one of those individuals (long)
wishing for an official, formal definition of commonly percieved
classes of resources central to web usage, including the class
"information resource", and encourage the W3C to actively facilitate
their definition, ideally in the form of an RDF schema which captures
the semantics of these fundemental classes of resources and their
essential relationships in a formal manner; an effort to which I
would be very happy to contribute.

Regards,

Patrick

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 06:00:03 UTC