Contradictory Definitions in XLink Rec?

When I look at two of the definitions in the XLink Rec it seems to me that 
they are contradictory.

Let me try to explain how I see the inconsistency or contradiction.

The definition of resource reads as follows:
"As discussed in [IEFT RFC 2396], a resource is any addressable unit of 
information or service."

The definition of link reads as follows:
"An XLink link is an explicit relationship between resources or portions of 
resources.]"

If, according to the definition of resource quoted above, a resource is any 
entity (for want of a better word) which is *addressable* (presumably by a 
URI) then any link (according to its definition) which involves two entities 
which are addressable must be using two "full" resources (since they are 
addressable) rather than "portions of resources" (which presumably are not 
addressable).

If a "portion of a resource" is addressable then according to the definition 
of resource that is a resource not the more nebulous "portion of a resource".

It seems to me that the terminology needs to be reviewed and tidied.

Since the terms resource and portion of resource occur more than a few times 
in the Rec there may need to be further tidying of the terminology other than 
in one or other of the two seemingly contradictory definitions cited above.

Andrew Watt