RE: More on distinguishing information resources from other resources

> >> We could spend a great deal more time trying to precisely 
> define the 
> >> meaning of "information resource", and yet doing so solves 
> no known 
> >> problem in the architecture.
> >
> >
> > +1
> +1


I think an architect is not a compliance officier.  An architect designs a
structure to function not to be legit.  The resolution of httpRange-14
serves the purpose but the resolution won't prevent misuse and abuse of http
> The degree of strictness the TAG takes on the question of 200 
> vs redirect ought to be proportional to the level of care, 
> careful definition and community review it invests in 
> defining some class of "Information Resource".
> Right now, webarch has something pretty loose and evocative:
> eg
> "Although it is possible to describe a great many things 
> about a car or a dog in a sequence of bits, the sum of those 
> things will invariably be an approximation of the essential 
> character of the resource."
> ...on this basis, I think FRBR's notion of an abstract Work 
> might also be rejected, since the bitstream manifestation of 
> expressions of some Work is also generally just an 
> approximation. Yet it is (to me) non-obvious that frbr:Work 
> and tag:InformationResource are mutually disjoint classes.

Why is it not? If a resource is abstract, it cannot be manifested otherwise
it won't be an abstract resource (AR).  What we can manifeste is not the AR
but its Description. But a Description of an Abstraction is not the
Abstraction itself.  Information resource (IR) is also different.  IRs are
those resources or the Description of resources that can be manifested into
bitstreams.  Of course, IR is disjoint from AR and also disjoint from the
Representation of AR as well.


Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 18:14:36 UTC