W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Drop “g-boxes”, talk about “stateful resources”

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:40:07 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <7CD3A9BE-41FE-4D97-B1E9-55862FCD8B3C@cyganiak.de>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 24 May 2012, at 18:40, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> How about using "resource" in a more qualified way. For instance, a Web accessible and addressable resource that's comprised of content constrained by the RDF data model is an RDF resource. This kind of resource is also explicitly associated with a mime type.
> The paragraph above caters for the fact that abstract real-world objects described by RDF resources aren't any of the following:
> 1. resources associated with a mime type
> 2. resources native to the web medium.
> Yes, my embodiment is technically a resource, but not of the medium: World Wide Web.

But I suppose you still want to be able to refer to yourself with a URI? Then we get to the funny situation where some URIs — Uniform Resource Identifiers — identify things that are not resources.

I don't think that redefining the meaning of “resource” is realistically achievable at this stage.

(Not a comment on whether the term makes sense or not! I just think we are stuck with it. Blame it on the TAG.)

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 18:41:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:05 UTC