Talk:Web resource

Web vs Internet

Is 'resource' confined to World Wide Web applications? I think by virtue of being the subject of IETF documents, it is applicable to the Internet more generally, no? I suggest renaming the article to Resource (Internet) and adjusting phrasing in the article accordingly.—mjb 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in its latest definition by RFC 3986, the scope of 'resource' is more general than any technological application, even as large as the Internet. URIs not attached to protocols, like URNs, have nothing to do with the Web nor the Internet. People in RDF land speak now about 'resource' for anything which can be identified, independently of the Web context. AI people who worked on the OWL specification consider abstract entities. So we have a big terminological and conceptual issue here, and no wonder no one dared expanding this page until last week ... Renaming the article Resource (Internet) is not the killer solution. I have no better proposal, though. Maybe setting a page Resource (Internet) with a redirect here to begin with? What do you think? universimmedia 19:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at mjb impressive background both on Wikipedia and in the real life, I think I should go a bit further. Even if it's not finished yet, my overall intention in starting expanding this article was to focus on the history of the concept, on the fact that the term 'resource' has long been ill-defined and very ambiguous, and that it has evolved over time towards a more and more abstract meaning, as if getting independence from its physical initial support (Internet, hypertext, protocols). A RDF triple is part of the Semantic Web insofar as it declares something about a resource, whether this resource is addressable or not, through Internet or otherwise, and whether this assertion is online or locked in a triple store, or even scribbled on a paper support. So maybe this article is actually about resource (RDF), whereas resource (Internet) is more like resource (computer science)? Hmmm... universimmedia 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Resources Collection

A1 Web Resources Collection

Rewrite

No offense to anyone that contributed to this article, but it's terribly written, and I've added the {{essay-like}} and {{rewrite}} templates to it because it sounds way too much like an essay and should probably be rewritten. Also, most of the article is original research. It has some good info, it just isn't presented in a very encyclopedic manner. If someone wants to help with that, feel free; I don't have the time, but I'll try to contribute here and there. Thanks. — ^Fatal Error 19:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion at all for five years! There have been some improvements in the article. I'll remove the tags. --Nigelj (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this page to Resource (web)

Hi! What do you think about moving this page to Resource (web)? I think it shouldn't be capitalized, as in Content development (web). Thanks. —C5st4wr6ch (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe moving it over the redirect Web resource is a better choice for renaming it. Doing it this way makes it more in line with similar naming like: Web browser, Web service, Web cache, etc.. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]