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

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

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 10:55:12 -0400
Message-Id: <p06020402bcdbadadf3a9@[10.0.1.2]>
To: uri@w3.org

At 1:31 AM -0700 5/25/04, Larry Masinter wrote:
>NEW
>    Resource
>        This document doesn't limit the scope of what might be a
>        'resource'; ...

This is good.

One question:  Do we really want to say "each URI scheme defines"
or should this document say "any URI scheme MAY define..."  or
"many URI schemes define"?  It's easy to read "each URI scheme
defines" as implying a requirement.

Al

At 1:31 AM -0700 5/25/04, Larry Masinter wrote:
>Personally, I think the attempt by the Semantic Web to make URIs do
>the semantic lifting of denotational terms in representation systems
>is flawed, and that RFC2396bis cannot 'fix' it and shouldn't try.
>The best way out of the mess is to be explicit that RFC2396bis
>doesn't circumscribe 'resource', but leaves it up to the URI scheme
>to define how the scheme binds URIs to resources:
>
>
>OLD
>     Resource
>        Anything that has been named or described can be a resource.      ^
>        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. A resource is not necessarily
>        accessible via the Internet; e.g., human beings, corporations, and
>        bound books in a library can also be resources. Likewise, abstract
>        concepts can be resources, such as the operators and operands of a
>        mathematical equation, the types of a relationship (e.g., "parent"
>        or "employee"), or numeric values (e.g., zero, one, and infinity).
>        These things are called resources because they each can be
>        considered a source of supply or support, or an available means,
>        for some system, where such systems may be as diverse as the World
>        Wide Web, a filesystem, an ontological graph, a theorem prover, or
>        some other form of system for the direct or indirect observation
>        and/or manipulation of resources. Note that "supply" is not
>        necessary for a thing to be considered a resource: the ability to
>        simply refer to that thing is often sufficient to support the
>        operation of a given system.
>
>NEW
>    Resource
>        This document doesn't limit the scope of what might be a
>        'resource'; rather, the term 'resource' is used for whatever it
>        is that a Uniform Resource Identifier identifies; each URI scheme
>        defines the range of things that are identified by
>        URIs using that scheme. Commonly, URIs are used to identify
>        Internet accessible objects or services; for example, an electronic
>        document, an image, a service (e.g., "today's weather report for
>        Los Angeles"), a collection of other resources. However,
>        a resource need not be accessible via the Internet; URIs might
>        be used to identify human beings, corporations, bound books in a
>library,
>        and even abstract concepts.
>
>
>I'll give you the same challenge: is there any system or specification
>that would break with this definition?
>
>When in doubt, duck.
>
>Larry
>--
>http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:34:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:51 UTC