W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > January 2008

RE: Example for consideration: Resource versus Representation

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:17:37 +0000
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: "public-awwsw@w3.org" <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <184112FE564ADF4F8F9C3FA01AE50009DECDAEA3EF@G1W0486.americas.hpqcorp.net>

> From: Pat Hayes
> At 12:11 AM -0500 1/24/08, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>       True, but is this different that giving a URI naming
>     "love".  What's the problem naming a byte stream with a URI,
>     if we can name a person, process, property with a URI?
> Well, no problem in semiotic principle, but I see no way to
> pin down such an intended meaning either by description or
> (still less) by Web architecture. I'd have some problems with
> a URi intended to refer to love, by the way. Is love a
> resource? Now there's a question.

Of course love can be a awww:resource, and of course it can have a URI.   Anything can be considered a awww:resource, and any resource can have a URI if someone chooses to mint one for it.  (I'll resist the temptation to show an actual URI that denotes the concept of love though, because I think it will distract from the important part of this discussion.)  Whether or not the intended meaning is pinned down well is an entirely different question though.  Some resource will be precisely identified, others more vaguely.

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 16:18:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:05 UTC