- From: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:25:09 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
- cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Lee Jonas wrote: >I didn't fully understand what you meant by this para. My point is: the >RDF spec should say RDF describes things via URI references as outlined in >RFC2396, full stop. I.e. stop trying to define a special notion of >'resource'/'thing'/'entity' in the RDF spec - it *is* whatever can be >referred to by a URI reference. The RFC2396 definitions of Resource, >Entity, URI, URI reference, etc are all normative and sufficient. It was already pointed out that the fragment identifier is not part of the URI, i.e. the identity of the *resource* pointed to by a URI reference. RFC2396 uses the work 'resource' to mean whatever is being pointed to by a URI, not a URI *reference*. The thing pointed to by a URI reference isn't given a name, and people too often use the word 'resource' to refer to it, even when this isn't the case. In this sense, the resource in the M&S sense is very different from the RFC2396 one, and the distinction should be emphasized. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 05:25:24 UTC