- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:03:10 +0100
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, bdehora@interx.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 02:26 PM 7/11/01 -0700, Sergey Melnik wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
> >
> > At 02:52 PM 7/10/01 -0700, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> > >resource (constant) = URI, name, referring expression
> >
> > I think that's clearly at odds with RFC2396 (which seems the nearest thing
> > we have to a universally accepted starting point for defining these
> things):
> >
> > [RFC 2396, section 1.1]:
> >
> > Resource
> > 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.
>
>Hm. From reading M&S it feels though that Resources are
>URI-identifiable/-ied things. I think this is *the* top-priority issue
>that we have to clarify and hold on (e-)paper.
Yes... my main concern above was that you seemed to be saying that the URI
(or other referring expression) *was* the resource.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 07:36:35 UTC