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

General and specific resources? (every document is in the Web)

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:35:01 -0500
Message-Id: <200106152037.f5FKbq908162@theinfo.org>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 02:33  PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> And as Roy Fielding pointed out, RFC2396 itself
> uses 'resource' only in the stricter sense;
> he (among others) haven't bought in to the
> way the RDF spec uses the term.

I think you are misrepresenting the issue. The issue is not that 
resource is only used in the stricter sense (in fact, the URI 
RFC makes it clear that resources can be anything "with 
identity"). The problem is that URI-refs (URIs plus fragments) 
are not defined to represent or relate to resources in any ways.

Roy and others were aware of this problem at the time they 
drafted the spec -- they did it on purpose. It's a feature, not 
a bug. The problems is that if you allow fragments to represent 
resources, you run into all sorts of problems (many of which RDF 
is already experiencing).

RDF needs to reconcile itself with web architecture somehow, and 
I feel that this is a serious issue for the Working Group to 
address.

I wrote up a summary of the issue at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001May/0137.html

--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 16:35:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:10 EDT