RE: My action item on Moby Dec, issue 14, etc

> From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@neonym.net] 
> 
> And, depending on what RDF expects the definition of 
> 'resource' to be, using another process to do that work may 
> have been a mistake...

Interpretations are standard stuff in a model theory. Perhaps 'process'
was a poor choice of word. RDF uses 'mapping'; the one that maps URIs to
resources (or labels to the world) is called 'IS'.

> What is RDFs definition of a 'resource'?

Not usefully different to HTTP's afaict; a resource is whatever a URI
names. Nonetheless if RDF held an 1-1 mappings as an axiomatic, the MT
wouldn't require the IS mapping. I suppose one could argue that IS is a
redundant artefact from model theoretic semantics in the large, or the
Web architecture provides IS 'for free' due to authoritative naming;
neither seems an entirely satisfactory way to show the seamntic and the
actual Web tee up axiomatically.

Bill de hÓra 
--
Propylon
www.propylon.com