- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:06:32 -0400
- To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: [ On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 17:53 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote: > Dan, > > > I think it's plain that Mark is not an information resource, so > > there's something of a contradiction, or at least a potential > contradiction, here. > > I expect that if we outfitted Mark with a heads up display and > keyboard that allowed him to view HTTP GET requests to > http://www.markbaker.ca/ that he would be perfectly capable as acting > as a standards compliant, if not a tad slow, HTTP 1.1 server. In that > case he *would* in fact be an information resource, no? *** No. He's made of atoms, not (just) bits. I think the definition is pretty clear http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#def-information-resource ] Sorry, I was making the (what I now see was an incorrect) inference that the set of information resources was supposed to be the same as the set of resources that are "legally" allowed to return 200 in response to HTTP GET. Rereading the resolution it says nothing about these sets being equivalent. It appears that there are people who believe these sets should be defined as equivalent but there is not a consensus on that opinion. My apologies for being dense for a moment. Consider this for a moment: to the extent that a things essential characteristics can be defined by membership in a defined (e.g. OWL) Class, such things would be "information resources" as the class definition can be serialized in the OWL transfer syntax and transmitted as a message. By such definition, although Mark Baker cannot currently be completely defined in OWL, such things as a Car, an airplane and/or various colors could be (e.g. the documentation for the Boeing 707 along with a particular "VIN"). Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 13:06:45 UTC