Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

On 7 June 2013 13:48, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Futher to discussion at the recent f2f, and With a lot of help from
> Marcos and Yves, we have a staging area on GitHub [1] for a _possible_
> second edition [2] of AWWW [3].  I emphasise that the TAG have _not_
> yet decided to do this, rather we are _considering_ it.  I have said
> I'll consider trying to edit a new edition _provided_ we can satisfy
> ourselves that the scope of the effort can be effectively limited.
>
> Of the various wedges whose thin edges we can anticipate threatening
> to turn into dangerous scope-creep, terminology is definitely high on
> the list.
>
> One example: At the f2f, Tim Berners-Lee mentioned that he would
> prefer to drop all use of the word 'resource'.  I too would like to do
> this, and indeed I recently posted [2] to this list a pointer to a
> talk I gave which introduces an approach to the httpRange-14 issue
> which avoids the word.
>
> To try to take this conversation forward, [1][2] contain (with diffs
> highlighted) a new Abstract, which removes 'resource', and introduces
> the 'active' aspect of the Web, as follows:
>
>   The World Wide Web uses relatively simple technologies with
>   sufficient scalability, efficiency and utility that they have
>   resulted in a remarkable interconnected space of information and
>   services, growing across languages, cultures and media. In an effort
>   to preserve these properties of the space as the technologies
>   evolve, this architecture document discusses the core design
>   components of the Web. They are identification of information and
>   services, representation of information state and service requests,
>   and the protocols that support the interaction between agents in the
>   space. We relate core design components, constraints, and good
>   practices to the principles and properties they support.
>
> Does this look like the kind of direction we'd like to move in?
>

+1 I found the new text more readable

It may be worth emphasising that one or MORE subjects (URIs) can appear in
a document.

>From my experience, all too often people work on the assumption that there
is a 1 to 1 correspondence between subject and document, which works fine
in many cases, but can later become problematic when it comes to
interoperability, and lessens the potential network effect of AWWW, imho.


>
> ht
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3ctag/webarch
> [2] http://w3ctag.github.io/webarch/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013May/0056.html
> --
>        Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>       10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>                 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                        URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>  [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged
> spam]
>
>