RE: "information resource"

The definition is for a web resource.  The other word senses aren't 
applicable.  That is why it is a weak theory.  It isn't intended to 
be a comprehensive ontology for the colloquialism.  That is also 
why 'on the web' has to be called 'colloquial' instead of a 
formal term.   A hard and stubborn part of writing the 
web arch doc and in fact, any specification or standard is 
to "conserve nouns" as Goldfarb said, to reduce misinterpretation. 
It is similar to formal ontology work in that respect.  Ontologies 
are theories.  Ontological commitment as defined by Gruber means 
committing to a theory or word sense, typically, with a means to 
verify the commitment through a testable property.  What has 
been pointed out several times by several individuals is that 
the term 'web resource' is testable.  So, this is a good term 
for the formal set of web architecture terms.

Try to conceive of a test for 'information space'.

len


From: Jon Hanna [mailto:jon@hackcraft.net]

Brief. Sore carpals.

"On the web" has lots of meanings, most common in these parts is that a
company/person is "on the web" (they own a site) or that information is
"on the web". Neither of these cases seem to match the definition.

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 22:10:24 UTC