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

Re: Redefining “resource” (was: Re: Drop “g-boxes”, talk about “stateful resources”)

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:33:56 +0100
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5E4446CE-E734-409B-80D6-832E93B34C8C@garlik.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
On 2012-05-25, at 12:28, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
...
> Could we do this? To see how deep a change this wold require, I looked for uses of “resource” throughout the specs.
> 
>  • RDF Concepts doesn't really rely on the term besides defining it.
> 
>  • RDF Semantics mostly uses it in the form of the IRI rdfs:Resource.
> 
>  • RDF/XML has it all over the place due to the rdf:resource attribute.
> 
>  • Turtle almost doesn't use it.
> 
>  • SPARQL uses it quite a few times, but nothing too difficult to change.
> 
>  • RDF Schema uses it *very* heavily.
> 
>  • So does the old Primer.
> 
>  • OWL2 barely uses it, except in the RDF-based semantics and in the
>    RDF/XML rdf:resource attribute
> 
>  • URIs and IRIs are “Uniform/Internationalized Resource Identifiers”, so the
>    term implicitly creeps in wherever we talk about URIs and IRIs.
> 
>  • RDF is the Resource Description Framework…
> 
> I don't know. Sounds like a difficult thing to do and tons of work. Anyone seriously thinks this would be a good idea?

No.

For me it's in the same area as "literals as subjects", nice idea, but just too disruptive.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 11:36:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT