W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: #rdfms-literals-as-resources in scope?

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:03:10 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010712120207.04928b60@joy.songbird.com>
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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:09 EDT