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

Re: #rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about (every document is inthe Web)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106151717501.30938-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Dan Brickley wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote:
> [...]
> > > Another subtlety that isn't relevant to the ID/about
> > > issue is whether 'resource' is used in the general
> > > sense of 'anything in the domain of discourse'
> > > (i.e. things you can refer to using absolute-URIs-with-fragments)
> > > or in the stricter sense of, roughly, 'something you can
> > > get at via the network' (i.e. things you
> > > can refer to using absolute-URIs-without-fragments).
> >
> > I've never seen a clear definition of this 'stricter' sense.
>
> Well, you did a pretty good job of making one up:
>
> > 'those things in the domain that can be named with RFC2396
> > identifier strings'

Except 'can be' is pretty floppy: the only criteria for having an RFC2396
seems to be 'first come, first served'. There are more namable objects
than RFC2396 identifier strings, so not everything gets to have one. The
vast majority of things that might be named with RFC2396 have nothing
to do with the Web, Internet, TCP/IP etc. Would you ever say of some
object, 'sorry, this isn't the kind of thing that is allowed an RFC2396
name'? I've not yet found any criteria that'd support such a rejection.

> in particular, absolute URIs, without fragments,
> from RFC2396.

Understood.


> >? Is there anything more we can say about those things?
>
> There isn't much more that I intend to say about them;

Is there much more you _could_ say about them, as a whole...? What is it
to be 'name-able' by an RFC2396 absolute URI? I can just about understand
what it is to be a thing that has been _named_ by an RFC2396, but to be
the 'kind of thing that might be so named' seems a nebulous property.

> some folks, though, have suggested that they're disjoint
> from properties, though; i.e. that dc:title can't
> be both a thing that you can HTTP GET *and*
> an RDF property.

You've mixed up a rather popular subset of the RFC2396-namable things, ie
http:-named things, with the larger population which includes tel:, java:,
isbn:, urn: etc etc., ie. lots that can't answer HTTP GET messages.

>		We need better terms just
> to have a coherent discussion with such folks!

very true!

> 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 agree with Aaron here: RFC2396 at least claims to take a pretty broad
view of 'resource':

rfc2396: [[
	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.
]]

I'm not sure how, if at all, this differs from your....

> > > 'anything in the domain of discourse'


Dan
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 17:33:56 EDT

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