W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2001

Re: RDF Terminology and Concepts notes...

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:11:39 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010112150148.04137d30@pop3.connectfree.uk.com>
To: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Dan,

[Administrative note:  currently, my established mail provider is unable to 
deliver my mail, so messages to the mailing lists, etc, are not getting to 
me.  Messages to the "NineByNine.org", "ACM.ORG" addresses are getting 
through.]

At 02:02 PM 1/12/01 +0000, Dan Brickley wrote:
>"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.

I agree, but I cannot see how not to distinguish the concepts given RDF's 
use of fragment identifiers that are clearly indicated NOT to be part of a 
URI (per http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Model.html).

>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.

Well, the articulation isn't an end, but a means to an end.  In this case, 
understanding of the issues.  I don't think we can brush it under the 
carpet.  I would be happy to add words that say this is not the place we 
want to be.

>Some related resources / context you might care to add to the doc:

Thanks:  I've added that to the document (online copy updated).

#g
Received on Friday, 12 January 2001 10:23:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT