- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:38:37 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Susie Stephens <susie.stephens@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>
Pat Hayes writes: > Until quite recently, and everywhere except for a few of the more > recherche TAG writings, "resource" in most of this literature in fact > means "information resource". And keeping "resource" as an > abbreviation for IR seems quite sensible, and conforms to natural > English usage and to historical precedents. Interesting point. That might work. > URI could be glossed as Uniform Rigid Identifier, which in fact is > quite a good description of its intended use. Umm, please take no offense, but that seems a bit clunky and forced. Right now, I think we should either stick with the current broad meaning for "Resource", or adopt a new initialism. It's not clear to me that anyone outside the priesthood has even noticed the URL->URI transition, so maybe yet more confusion only makes it a little worse? > With respect to IBM, 150 IBMers is a pretty small group compared to > the entire rest of the planet. Yes, of course. The question is whether my little experience is representative of many others? Overall, there's a tremendous investment in teaching people about the Web and how to use it. How much of that is at a level of specificity that would be affected by the changes of terminology we're contemplating, I'm not sure. I'm just offering one datapoint, not drawing any conclusions. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:57:19 UTC