W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2004

RE: removing constraints on 'resource' [024-identity]

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:04:13 -0700
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E5201E803C5@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>
Cc: <msabin@milessabin.com>, <tbray@textuality.com>

That's good.

I think that some people would wish to restrict that statement (e.g.
what is meant by "thing"?), but I think that any further restriction
beyond "a resource can be anything" is not useful.  This RDF concept of
"resource" is just right IMO.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:53 PM
> To: uri@w3.org
> Cc: msabin@milessabin.com; tbray@textuality.com; Joshua Allen
> Subject: removing constraints on 'resource' [024-identity]
> Regarding...
> "Anything that has been named or described can be a resource."
> -- http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#overview
> Based on discussion with TimBL and Roy and a few others, as 
> well as review of this issue...
> 024-identity Resource should not be defined as anything that 
> has identity 
> http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/issues.html#024-identity
> it seems more straightforward to just say
> 	A resource can be anything; 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,
> 	but there is no constraint on what is a resource.
> Public discussion of http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ suggest 
> that this unconstrained definition of 'resource', along with 
> a separate term for a smaller set of "information resources" 
> is a useful way to describe the role of URIs in Web Architecture.
> (we haven't finished the text yet, but you can see a diagram at
>   http://www.w3.org/2004/05/URI-space-small.png
>   http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/URI-space.svg
> and some notes on the discussion at
>   http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html#httpRange-14-1 )
> The unconstrained definition of 'resource' is also what was 
> imported into the RDF specification:
>   The things denoted are called 'resources', following [RFC 2396], but
>   no assumptions are made here about the nature of resources; 
> 'resource'
>   is treated here as synonymous with 'entity', i.e. as a generic term
>   for anything in the universe of discourse.
>     -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ aka
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/
> I think this captures the input I got from TimBL on the 
> matter; could you confirm, TimBL?
> Roy's input to the recent discussion was mostly in the role 
> of editor, relaying comments on earlier URI spec drafts. From 
> the archives, it seems that at Miles Sabin, Pat Hayes, Tim 
> Bray, and Joshua Allen had opinions on the matter. If you 
> would care to comment on this proposal, I'd appreciate it.
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 24 May 2004 17:04:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC