RE: on documents and terms [was: RE: [WNET] new proposal WN URIs and related issues]

>  > From:  Dan Connolly
>>  . . .
>>  Pat Hayes wrote:
>>  > My current
>>  > understanding is that an information resource is some thing
>>  > that can
>>  > be transmitted over a network by a transfer protocol. On this
>>  > understanding, one could argue that a word was an information
>>  > resource.
>>
>>  On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:40:20 -0400 Booth, David wrote:
>>  > It sounds like you are mainly disagreeing with the TAG's guidance.
>>
>>  For what it's worth, I think Pat's position is consistent
>>  with the TAG's position (i.e. the W3C's position, since
>>  webarch is now a W3C Recommendation).
>
>I'm surprised and baffled, since I thought Pat argued that it is okay
>for a URI to be used both as a name for a person and a name for a
>document that describes that person.
>  But I guess you're referring to
>this one point about a word being an information resource.

Right, I took Dan to be agreeing with this one 
point. Im sure he didn't intend to express a 
blanket endorsement of everything I say.

>  > . . . The definition of "Information Resource" that W3C
>>  endorses[10] is:
>>  . . .
>>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#def-information-resource
>>
>>  I don't think that means that words are not information resources.
>
>I think it may depend on what you mean by "words".�
>
>If http://example.org/doc.html identifies a single resource, and the
>associated document is updated to correct typos, then clearly
>http://example.org/doc.html is identifying more than just the words that
>are *currently* served from that URI: it is identifying a document
>*abstraction*, rather than a particular document instance or a
>particular set of words.  I don't see how "all of [the] essential
>characteristics"[10] of that document *abstraction* can be "conveyed in
>a message"[10].
>
>Similarly, if http://weather.example.com/oaxaca identifies a single
>resource that is "a periodically updated report on the weather in
>Oaxaca"[10], then I don't see how "all of [the] essential
>characteristics"[10] of that periodically updated report can be
>"conveyed in a message"[10].
>
>Because "information resources" can return different "representations"
>at different times (even if some happen to return the same
>representation every time), it seems to me that "information resources"
>are by their very nature abstract.

Why do you say they are abstract? I think I see 
what you mean (and I think I agree), but 
'abstract' seems like entirely the wrong word to 
use to characterize it.

>Clearly the notion of an "information resource" is modeled after the
>real life notion of the contents of a (logical) disk region, on a Web
>server, that is associated with a URI "racine".  (The "racine" is all of
>the URI except the fragment identifier.[11])  The server is configured
>to return those contents, whatever they are, when the URI racine is
>dereferenced.  And those contents may change over time!  Thus, the URI
>racine is not identifying any *particular* contents, it is identifying
>the logical *location* where those contents are stored, and the server
>provides whatever contents happen to be stored there at the moment they
>are requested.

OK, great. That all makes wonderful sense. What 
does not make nearly so much sense, however, is 
to go on to say that the the contents that happen 
to be stored there are a "representation" of the 
logical location.

>In fact, it is not even possible on the Web to create a URI that is
>permanently bound to a single document instance that can never change:
>it is *always* possible to change the server configuration or domain IP
>mapping to cause a different document instance to be served.  In other
>words, an http URI on the real Web identifies a logical *location* whose
>content *always* has the potential of changing.  Similarly (I argue), an
>"information resource" is *necessarily* abstract.  Thus, if something is
>not abstract, then it cannot be an "information resource".
>
>So returning to your comment about whether a word could be an
>"information resource", it depends on what you mean by "word".  If an
>alternate spelling of "color" is "colour", then we are referring to an
>abstract notion of a word, whose spelling may vary.

But that sense of 'abstract' is not the one you 
have been using, right? Nothing here about time, 
for example.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Monday, 1 May 2006 18:55:07 UTC