- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:36:45 -0600
- To: RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <gk@acm.org>
Graham Klyne, in his terminology note drew a distinction between RDF and Web resources, which DanBri felt was a mistake: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0104.html <q> "Web Resource" versus "RDF Resource" is not a distinction I care to make. We identify resources "to", "for" and "in" the Web, not "on" it: URIs have long allowed us to name so-called non-Web resources. For example: telephone numbers, Java interfaces, intellectual works / publications (ISBN, Handle etc), and the like can all be identified as RDF=Web resources, despite not being "on" the Web. By this I don't mean to claim that all W3C/IETF/etc documents that appeal to a notion of 'Resource' relating to URIs are consistent. Just that they should be, and that we shouldn't take as a goal the articulation of a distinction between 'Web' versus 'RDF' resources. </q> He also provided a list of related links to check for more information on the problem. More recently, at the W3C Technical Plenary, Graham raised the issue that there was no official mapping between URIs and resources. I don't have a pointer. Graham, have you raised this on the lists? -- Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| ...schoolyard subversion... <http://www.aaronsw.com> | because school harms kids AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| http://aaronsw.com/school/
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 13:36:23 UTC