W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Preferable alternative to 'resource'

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>
Message-ID: <OFAAD802CF.61C4041E-ON8525736F.004D7ED4-8525736F.0055C800@lotus.com>

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 Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:57:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:18 UTC