W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2004

RE: Information resources?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:26:10 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1CDA@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <jon@hackcraft.net>, <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Jon Hanna
> Sent: 09 September, 2004 16:40
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Information resources?
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting "Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>:
> 
> > > > Yes. A "web resource" is a subclass of "resource".
> > > > 
> > > > A "resource" is a "resource".
> > > > A "web resource" is a "resource".
> > > > A "representation" is a "resource".
> > > 
> > > No, a representation is a resource only if there is a URI (or 
> > > perhaps an RDF
> > > BNode) for the represetation. 
> > 
> > Let's be sure we mean the same thing by "resource".
> > 
> > *Anything* can be a resource, whether it is named by a URI
> > or denoted by an anonymous node in an RDF graph.
> > 
> > However, if we are to refer to a resource in a way that is
> > significant to either the web or semantic web machinery, then
> > we need to use URIs, URIrefs, or anonymous nodes.
> 
> Agreed, it isn't "on the web" until then, but clearly it's a 
> resource before
> then. If I would accept any distinction between "web 
> resource" and "resource"
> it would be that a "web resource" is already identified by a 
> URI 

Being identified by a URI is, I think, implicit in the definition of 
"web resource" because in order for a resource to have web accessible
representations, one must be able to interact with those representations
via a URI (insofar as the web machinery is concerned).

> (or perhaps
> indirectly through a IFP value that is a URI, though this is 
> less clear and
> brings in OWL matters that don't necessarily apply to much of the web
> technologies).
> 
> > Agreed. The URI used to denote a resource should be distinct
> > from the URI to denote its representation (unless, of course,
> > the resource and representation are the same -- as would be
> > the case of the representation of a representation, which
> > would correspond to a bit-equal copy of itself).
> 
> Yes. Another time when a resource and it's representation are 
> one and the same
> would be a software patch or any other item where downloading 
> the file itself
> is the whole point of it being there. Of course in both these 
> cases there could
> be other representations as well, just as there can be 
> multiple representations
> for any resource.

Right.

It would be nice to see some discussion of this in AWWW, i.e.
that (a) a representation can be a URI denoted web resource,
and  (b) the representation of a representation is a bit-equal copy
of the resource itself.

Nice to see, though not essential...

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 16:28:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:28 GMT