- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:17:55 +0100
- To: Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>
- CC: 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>
Michaeljohn Clement wrote: > Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > >> Come on. Define IR and essential before using it to argue O.K.? >> > > For "IR", I guess you can start here: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-information-resource > > And maybe this will help you: > > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Model.html#Resource > > For "essential", the normal English meaning applies. > Michaeljohn, wasn't all my arguments about telling people that two definitions are not practical? You treat that two definitions in a religious and sentimental way. I treat them in scientific way. See my post here: http://dfdf-note.blogspot.com/2007/11/zen-and-love-of-information-resource.html Not try to make fun of it but truly want to enlighten our thoughts on this debate. >> How can >> we have a meaningful argument on something that has an ambiguous >> definitions? >> > > It is a basic human problem; perhaps you should ask a linguist or > philosopher. Or ask a biologist about "gene". > > >> That is again you have not fully understand what I and Pat try to tell >> you. It is not move /away/, you can still work in the same way as you >> do now. It is about to have /more/ ways to do /more/ things - in a more >> useful and meaningful way. >> > > You assert this, but did not address my point. > > I apologize if my answers appear flippant, but I do not wish to repeat > myself and do not see how to clarify further so I will leave it at that. > No apology needed. I didn't get offended easily. But sometime I do get impatient and frustrated. It is not that I don't want to address your point. It is because I don't know what *is* your point. You tell me exactly what is IR, then I can know how to agree or disagree. If there is no httpRange-14 or any attempt to invoke some logic to follow it, I wouldn't have to bother argue for all these. I didn't say that I can tell you exactly what a gene is. But I didn't ask people to follow a specific way to describe a gene, either. If you think the distinction of IR and httpRange-14 is important, make it in a meaningful way so that other people can follow your guideline. But why do you insist on asking me to help you to explain your ambiguous position? I cannot - it is beyond my capability! If you can, do it by all means and if it makes sense and inclusive, I will be very glad to follow. Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 11:18:49 UTC