Re: Inference rules for HTTP, etc.

awww:Resource a rdfs:Class ;
         rdf:comment "A resource, as defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/ 
webarch/#def-resource : 'We do not limit the scope of what might be a  
resource.  The term ''resource'' is used in a general sense for   
whatever might be identified by a URI. It is conventional on the  
hypertext Web to describe Web pages, images, product catalogs, etc.  
as ''resources''." .

At the risk of beating a dead horse, this definition does not come  
out and say that everything is a resource. It only makes the weaker  
statement that anything *might* be a resource, and then  
(contradicting what the second part of the first sentence says)  
limits "resource" further to those things that might be named by a  
URI (without saying what might or might not be named by a URI).

I would prefer to abandon the AWWW definition for the purpose of  
defining a class and use either with Tim's (and RDF's) definition  
(everything is a resource), or some other more precise definition  
such as RFC 2616's or Fielding's [1]. Or, even better, avoid the word  
"resource" entirely in this context in favor of "thing".

Fortunately you never use awww:Resource, so it would be safe to just  
remove it from rules.n3.

I see that your rules imply that 200-responders aren't physical  
things, which is good. The only consequence of something being an  
awww:InformationResource is that it is abstract, however. It might be  
nice to be able to deduce that 200-responders are not other kinds of  
abstract things such as numbers or representations (as Tim has  
repeatedly asserted).

[1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/ 
rest_arch_style.htm