W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Is the term 'anonymous resourse' a misnomer?

From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 22:15:47 +0100 (BST)
To: RDF SIG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GHP.4.21.0005052208590.28923-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Thu, 4 May 2000, Seth Russell wrote:

> Is it just me, or is the term 'anomious resource' a misnomer?  Isn't
> this thing a subjective reference like an indexical or a local
> variable that has meaning locally (subjectively) but not globally
> (objectively)?   If this interpretation is correct, then how did we
> get stuck with the term 'anonymous'?
> Seth Russell

That (or a v similarly motivated point) was what I've been arguing. I
believe the phrase has it's origins in the original deliberations of
the RDF Model and Syntax WG, though haven't checked (nor checked with
it appears in the final version of the M&S spec).

The namelessness is to do with a particular data structure about some
resource, not an intrinsic property of the resource itself.

Unified-theory-of-everything enthusiasts might try tracking the WebDAV
discussion on this theme, who seem to be grappling with similar

See threads on 'Qualities of URLs', eg. todays:

Received on Friday, 5 May 2000 17:16:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:29 UTC