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

Re: A shot back at #rdfms-resource-semantics

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:44:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3AF81472.76E1E7B1@w3.org>
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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:46 EDT