- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:14:54 -0600
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: <me@aaronsw.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>Pat, > >Perhaps a short note of explanation. Aaron's issue is a valid one, however >my solution is not to change RDF, rather to submit an Internet Draft to the >IETF which, if accepted, i.e. becomes an RFC, validates the RDF usage. I am >doing this in a way that does not interfere with other people's (i.e. >non-RDF) current use of URI refs. > >In an ideal world I would state that: > >Every URI reference identifies a resource. A resource may be anything with >identity. (This is the RDF usage). > >The 'problem' is that RFC 2396 states that a _URI_ (i.e. without frag id) >identifies a resource. It doesn't say that a URI ref identifies a resource. > >Not wishing to _supercede_ RFC 2396, i.e. not wishing to redefine the RFC >2396 definition of the term _resource_, I invented a new term "subresource" >which is intended to be just like a resource except that it is identifies by >a URI + a nonblank fragment identifier. > >The net effect is the same, though I admit this way of defining things is >more circuitous. On the other hand I can't just go around willy-nilly >redefining how RFC 2396 works (well that is the theory in any case). > >So what I've said isn't much, the effect is to say: The RDF usage is >correct, but I am saying it in a way that allows non-RDF folks to continue >to use RFC 2396 unchanged. > >Jonathan OK, then please bear in mind that my recent long response to you was written before I read the above. I think there are still some serious issues to sort out in this area, both within RDF and more generally. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 18:14:58 UTC