> I understand what you're saying. > But the intent seems to be to represent all existents on the web. > In that case, "Resource" and "existent" are absolutely identical. > So why use two different words when they have exactly the same > meaning? Why have two terms for "cardiac arrest" and "heart attack" (I know there's a third, but I can't recall it)? Different communities have different words for different things and concepts. Sometimes one must adopt the language of another to communicate with them. "existent" isn't a term often used in the context of the web, "resource" is. > If you want to distinguish existents which are represented on the > web from those which are not represented on the web, then it makes > sense to have two words. No. It isn't to distinguish those things represented on the web. Anything with a URI is a web resource, even if you cannot dereference that URI to obtain a representation of it. (For one thing, the distributed and lose and fallible nature of the web means that it you can never guarantee any dereferencing operation - the web is built to deal with that fact).Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 12:14:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT