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: <>
To: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

[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 

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).

Received on Friday, 12 January 2001 10:23:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC