On 4/1/12 11:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/1/12 4:35 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:hi allOn Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:53:03PM +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:maybe I made an error by assuming that the term IR is inherent in the term representation - by assuming that a NIR cannot have a representation, onlyNo. The whole point about the use of the term IR in HR14 seems to be to say:descriptions ?Everything that has a representation has a representation that conveys it'sessential characteristics. Is this important ? If yes, should we write it this way ? Regards, Michael BrunnbauerAren't we somehow losing the fundamental fact that all resources on the Web are supposed to be bear self-describing content, constrained by mime type. That when all is said and done, irrespective of mime type, all Web resources are Information Resources.The above gels nicely with the fact that all content bears representation of something the provides information to appropriate systems, courtesy of the mime type component of this content+mime-type composite.The content of a basic HTML web page, an RDF document, OWL and RDFs documents all bear content that deliver information. Of course, within specific system realms such as RDF, Linked Data, and the Semantic Web, the content represents a more specific kind of information in the form of descriptions and definitions -- at least, in the eyes of systems (clients and servers) for said realms.
In the post above, I forgot to add this link for reference: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html .
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
