W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: "Resource" (RDF vocabulary definitions)

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:21:16 -0500
Message-ID: <3DDE3D5C.9090509@mitre.org>
To: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
CC: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>, RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

David Menendez wrote:

> At 12:27 PM -0500 2002-11-21, Frank Manola wrote:
> 
>> Also, if you don't like "resource", you might get more bang for your
>> argument taking it to the authors of RFC 2396 (see, e.g.,
>> http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt) or to uri@w3.org.  This isn't
>> an RDF-specific usage, after all.
> 
> 
> What about URI references which include fragment identifiers? My reading 
> of RFC 2396 is that <http://example.org/> and <http://example.org/#foo> 
> refer to the same resource.


They don't (necessarily) refer to the same resource in RDF, and there's 
been a lot of discussion about that point, including discussion in 
uri@w3.org (the current RDF Concepts document refers to "RDF URI 
references", with a discussion of what equality means for them, and we 
try to be consistent in the other documents).  Note though that the 
origin of the current issue was why "resource" was used at all, as 
opposed to something like "existent", and "resource" as defined in RFC 
2396 is the basis of this usage.


--Frank


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 09:04:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT