- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:44:50 -0500
- To: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Martyn Horner wrote: [...] > OK. The M&S says that RDF asserts facts about resources and that > `resources are always named by URIs plus optional anchor ids'. That > doesn't define resources but the glossary says that `resources represent > entities'. Er... where? I don't see that in the glossary entry you excerpted. Quite the other way around: resources are represented by entities. Think of the case of a resource being a person; an entity representing the state of a person might be a photo of the person. Clearly the person doesn't represent the photo. [...] > Issue part 1 (resource is sequence of bytes) delivers a no OK. > Issue part 2 (two URIs for same resource) delivers no The resoning behind this seems off; you wrote: >... it seems that an argument from > definition says no and an argument from application says yes. but the "argument from definition" wasn't an argument from definition; it was an argument from BrianM's working model. > but two resources > can represent the same entity (and this should be said). I don't understand this notion of resources representing entities. > I trust that's focussed enough this time. It's focussed, yes, but I don't follow the reasoning. > I think it firms up the base. > It's just my opinion of course... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 11:47:08 UTC