- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:10:39 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
>>What is wrong with saying: >> >> A resource can be anything that can be named. >> >>It appears that is what you mean to say > >Because the long-standing debate regarding names vs locators causes >any definition containing the word "name" to be just as controversial >(more so given the context) as "identity". But, yes, that is what I >mean to say. Ah, that is progress (for me), thanks. I agree that the word "name" is potentially troublesome, so how about "a resource is anything that can be referred to". That sidesteps the question of HOW you refer to it, of course. It still has the problem, for me, that the extra words at the end read like a qualifier, and immediately suggest that one is presupposing that there are things that cannot be referred to, and I kind of doubt if there are any of those. So I still prefer the wonderfully simple version: a resource can be anything. Pat PS. How about the following as a way to introduce the whole thing? Obviously more would be needed. URIs can be used to refer to resources, and a resource is anything that can be referred to. The vacuity of this as a definition reflects the fact that there are no a priori boundaries on the kinds of thing that URIs can be used to refer to; the need for a special nomenclature arises from the fact that URIs are used in Web protocols associated in various ways with the resources they refer to. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 02:10:43 UTC