RE: More on distinguishing information resources from other resources

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 
> 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

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


Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 13:06:45 UTC