W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2003

RE: resources, stuffs and individuation

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:42:46 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C108CE79F6@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <uri@w3c.org>

> > What is wrong with saying:
> >
> >    A resource can be anything that can be named.

>  - could in principle be assigned a name
> ... gets us back into resources are just things territory,

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant to say.  Isn't that what everyone else
is saying?  Does it eliminate the ambiguity to say:

"A resource is anything that can be assigned a name for purposes of

This seems to address Pat's concerns -- some things are, indeed,
unnamable.  Those things are not "resources"; everything else is.

>   - could be mentioned by name (because it has one)
> the latter view, roughly the "to be is to be
> the value of a uri" view of 2396 resources, is one

Wow, I am surprised that anyone would want to stipulate that something
must already have a URI assigned to qualify as a "resource".  What
possible use could there be in trying to argue about *that*?
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 13:42:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:05 UTC