Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>wrote:

> Henry Thompson wrote:
>
>
> > One example: At the f2f, Tim Berners-Lee mentioned that he would
> > prefer to drop all use of the word 'resource'.
>
> Maybe, but I note that even the proposed "bis" version of HTTP continues
> to emphasize use of the term resource. It seems to me that the TAG's role
> should be to unify, and then help explain the proper use of terminology
> relating to Web architecture. If we can get RFC 2616 and other pertinent
> specifications aligned on some new terminology, I might be in favor. On the
> other hand, I don't see how the TAG helps to avoid confusion if it fails to
> use/explain the terminology of the pertinent specifications, in this case
> for HTTP.
>

If there is terminology that *cannot* be explained and whose use inexorably
leads to confusion, then the TAG can help lead the community away from
confusion simply by being careful to avoid use of that terminology.

Jonathan

Noah
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/**HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-**
> lafon-rfc2616bis-03.html#the.**resource.identified.by.a.**request<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.html#the.resource.identified.by.a.request>
>
>
> On 6/7/2013 7:48 AM, Henry S. Thompson 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?
>>
>> ht
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/w3ctag/**webarch<https://github.com/w3ctag/webarch>
>> [2] http://w3ctag.github.io/**webarch/ <http://w3ctag.github.io/webarch/>
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-tag/2013May/0056.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013May/0056.html>
>>
>>
>