Re: URGENT: train wreck coming, action needed. (was: Fwd: URI-CG group chartered)

Re: URGENT: train wreck coming, action needed. (was: FFolks,

This is a permathread.

A few observations:

1) "A resource can be anything that has identity.  Familiar
examples include an electronic document, an image, a service          (e.g.,
"today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a          collection of
other resources.  Not all resources are network          "retrievable";
e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound          books in a library can
also be considered resources.
"

This definition doesn't restrict _resource_ to something that _has_ identity
... otherwise the above paragraph would have been written "A resource _is_
anything that has identity..." or "A resource may only be something that has
identity ..."... etc. etc.

2) RDF's use of the term "resource" is not identical to RFC 2396's use of
the term "resource", so perhaps we are talking different varieties of apples
(i.e. RFC identifies a resource via a URIref vs. via a URI).

3) This is a permathread.

4) I'm convinced that the solution to this argument will not come via
proclamation, rather via working code that corresponds to written
specifications. Either there will be compatibility problems between systems
written to divergent specs e.g. RFC 2496 vs. RDF or not. I've not seen any
showstoppers.

Jonathan

Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 14:03:22 UTC