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

Re: Redefining “resource”

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:40:53 +0100
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, RDF-WG Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A1FD616F-89A0-4475-BCC6-6E8ED858B25B@cyganiak.de>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Hi Nathan,

On 25 May 2012, at 15:55, Nathan wrote:
> Roughly, there is the set of everything named with an IRI, Set-A ("resources")
> then Set-B, a proper subset of Set-A, the set of all things which can be interacted with via one of the stack of network/internet protocols, including http/ftp/tor/spdy
> then Set-C, another proper subset of Set-A which comprises of everything else, Set-A subtract Set-B, which includes my shoes and your left ear.

You're contradicting yourself.

If it has an HTTP URI, then I can, *by definition*, interact with it through the internet stack.

Now, RDF insists that an HTTP URI can denote anything, including your shoes and my left ear.

Ergo, *everything* is in Set-B, and Set-C is empty. Shoes and ears are in Set-B.

> Personally though, I still think that Pat's suggestion of using the term "RDF Source(s)" where necessary could be used to skirt around all of this nicely, using a clear non overloaded term.

So, the things that REST calls resources, we should call “sources”. And everything else, we should call “resources”. That's a bit backwards.

Best,
Richard
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 15:49:59 GMT

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