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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:43:49 -0400
Message-ID: <4FBE8F75.5000006@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 5/24/12 2:40 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Kingsley,
> 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?

Yes, I can have a de-referencable URI based Name that's the focal point 
of a description graph to which it resolves via indirection.

> Then we get to the funny situation where some URIs — Uniform Resource Identifiers — identify things that are not resources.

I would say, URIs that identify things that are of the Web medium as 
well as not being of the Web medium. Thus, the document bearing/carrying 
RDF based content that describes me also has its own URI based Name 
which is also its Address.

As you know, the subtleties above are not necessarily RDF spec 
preoccupations per se., that's all about Linked Data -- which in my eyes 
remains a specific application of RDF, at best.
> 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.)

If a "resource" is anything that can be the referent of a URI, and that 
definition sticks, we are going to have to live with the resulting 
confusion and inconvenience.

Another way out for RDF is for it to be loosely coupled with Linked 
Data. Doing that enables Linked Data oriented memes make clearer use of 
the term "resource" while RDF's definition remains as is etc..


This is why RDF and Linked Data conflation was never a good idea re. 
tweak you suggested to TimBL re. his original meme. RDF can be used to 
produce Linked Data, but that doesn't inextricably bind it to Linked 
Data or make it equivalent to Linked Data.

BTW -- I know you meant "RDF" in the Data Model sense, but that sense is 
one generally perceived by the constituency that's coalescing around 
TimBL's Linked Data meme .

> Best,
> Richard



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

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 19:44:19 UTC

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