Re: The range of the HTTP dereference function

> > > Here is my argument the HTTP URIs (without "#") should be understood as
> > > referring to documents, not cars.
> > 
> > I am more curious about how this artificial "without #" distinction came
> > about.  I think it was a mistake, one of many embodied in RDF that make
> > RDF incapable of reasoning about the Web.
> 
> I don't understand where you are coming from, here.

Sorry, I am confusing two different discussion threads.

> The distinction doesn't come from RDF, it comes from the URI.
> That what allows RDF to talk about anything.
> Which is what makes it such a wiz-bang language for reasoning
> about the Web.

The problem is that by not making the distinction between representations
and resources, it is very hard to say that a given resource has as its
representations a set of other resources that are selectively mapped
according to the rules defined by yet another resource.  In other words,
describing the metadata relationships of a resource that isn't just a document.

> I'd like you to elaborate what you meant by RDF not being able to
> reason about the web, as we are obviously on different wavelengths! :-)

RDF doesn't understand content negotiation, or anything like it. :(

....Roy