W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

More research on resources, think it's all here

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:34:05 -0700
Message-ID: <3D8B863D.60805@textuality.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> I got around to reading the latest RDF Concepts WD 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/) and found the 
> following in sect 2.4.2.
> 
> "Some URIrefs may indicate web resources, and a node thus labelled is 
> presumed to denote that resource. Other URIrefs may represent abstract 
> ideas or values rather than a retreivable [sic] Web resource. "

So I decided to go see what the other normative documents say.  The 
latest RDF/XML Syntax Spec WD 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20020325) says nothing 
about what a Resource might be or its relationship to a URI.

The latest draft of RDF Model Theory 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020429/) says a couple of 
interesting things.

In section 0.1 "The chief utility of such a semantic theory is not to 
suggest any particular processing model, or to provide any deep analysis 
of the nature of the things being described by the language (in our 
case, the nature of resources), but rather to provide a technical tool 
to analyze the semantic properties of proposed operations on the 
language; in particular, to provide a way to determine when they 
preserve meaning."

And in section 1.2 "Urirefs are treated as logical constants, i.e. as 
names which denote something (the things are called 'resources', but no 
assumptions are made about the nature of resources.)"

To make sure we cover the RDF waterfront:  RDFS says essentially nothing.

Switching to another domain:

RFC2396 says two things:  In the Abstract "A Uniform Resource Identifier 
(URI) is a compact string of characters
    for identifying an abstract or physical resource."

In section 1.1
        " A resource can be anything that has identity.  Familiar
          examples include an electronic document, an image, a service
          (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a
          collection of other resources.  Not all resources are network
          "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound
          books in a library can also be considered resources."

And RFC 2616 (HTTP) says, in 1.3 Terminology
" resource
       A network data object or service that can be identified by a URI,
       as defined in section 3.2. Resources may be available in multiple
       representations (e.g. multiple languages, data formats, size, and
       resolutions) or vary in other ways."

================================================================

Well, members of the community, the evidence is before you.  What should 
the Webarch document say about these issues?  -Tim
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 16:34:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT