- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:26:23 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 10/20/11 4:08 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org> wrote: >>> >>> What document? Pointer please? >> >> Sorry, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/ >> >> > Jonathan, > > I note that you have an entry for information resource in the glossary but > nothing for: > > 1. resource Other than in the collocation 'information resource', the word is used only once, and there not in a technical sense. Did you understand it to be in an undisclosed technical sense? I hate to give up a perfectly useful ordinary English word (look it up if you want to know what I meant), but I guess I should reword that sentence to avoid it, since 'resource' has been defined technically in so many different ways, with so many different connotations, that it is now nearly useless in web-land. > 2. non information resource. If I tell you what a dog is, is it necessary then to also tell you what a non-dog is? I do not use this term and take pains not to. I don't even want to evoke it as a category. The subject has been covered many times on this list, and this particular report does not need to take a stand. Since I believe that 'information resource' as a type distinction has derailed this whole discussion, and if it's useful at all, is emergent rather than fundamental, I do not want to say anything that suggests that something exists that is not an information resource. I think such a world model would be unreasonable, but it is not ruled out by any consideration that is supposed to arise in this document. And (as David Booth keeps pointing out) the existence of so-called NIRs is not forced by webarch-like considerations, only by ontological considerations, which no matter how compelling, are (as far as I've been able to determine) out of scope. It would be nice to eliminate the 'information resource' category from this document. It just seems to fan the flames. I believe it's possible - I have done so in other pieces of writing with good results - but I haven't attempted it in this particular document yet. > My comments are more to do with completion and less to do with opinion -- my > views on either aren't a secret to anyone :-) Appreciated, but distractions can inflame. The fewer the assumptions, the easier it should be to swallow. Best Jonathan > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > President& CEO > OpenLink Software > Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 21:26:51 UTC