- From: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:09:13 -0600
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: wangxiao@musc.edu, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Apr 13, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Michaeljohn Clement wrote: >> But you are wrong, there is no such thing as a byte-copy of an >> information resource (in the AWWW sense). Obviously a clear >> definition of what an IR is has been hard to come by, but it is >> not something of which one can take a byte-copy. Any such thing >> would be an awww:representation. > > Like anything at all, a awww:representation is a resource. One might > argue, to make what you say true, that an awww:representation is not an > IR, but I think that this would be difficult to support with the current > definitions. Thank you, you are correct. Let me try again: But you are wrong, there is not necessarily any such thing as a byte- copy of a given information resource (in the AWWW sense). Obviously a clear definition of what an IR is has been hard to come by, but it is not necessarily something of which one can take a byte-copy. Would you agree with the above? Michaeljohn
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 00:09:48 UTC