- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:24:54 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4EA19CD6.3000605@openlinksw.com>
On 10/21/11 7:33 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> So I can safely conclude: >> > >> > 1. resource -- distraction. > I think it is; whether you agree is up to you, and I can't vouch for > your safety if you do. >> > 2. non information resource -- distraction. > Similarly. >> > 3. information resource -- a distraction that's on its way out? > I don't think any of us can predict what's on its way in or out. > Personally I'm not keen on the expression, however. Remember, I really posted with glossary completion in mind. My opinions re. resource, information resource, and non information resources are public knowledge. My responses above simply sought clarification of your comments. That's it. Re. my personal opinion, which isn't a secret: I think they are all broken. I prefer terminology from the broader realm of computer science. Again, I am expressing this opinion *right now* because you seem to be making assumptions about my opinions :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 16:25:16 UTC