Re: resources (RDF, that is)

On 12/18/14, 10:50 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> In RDF, nodes, and literals, and blank nodes denote resources.  The 
> section you reference is from the introduction, which is well before 
> blank nodes are introduced.  Throughout the RDF documentation resource 
> should only be used when talking about things in the world, i.e., what 
> is denoted by IRIs, literals, and blank nodes in RDF graphs.  This use 
> of resource is consistent with common web parlance - URI (Uniform 
> Resource *Identifier*) and IRI (Internationalized *Resource* 
> Identifier).  I think that this working group should freely use 
> resource with this meaning.
>
> The Jena documentation 
> https://jena.apache.org/documentation/rdf/index.html mirrors this 
> setup, more or less.  (See the section "Nodes:...".)  However, Jena 
> then goes on to stupidly use Resource to identify the union of IRIs 
> and blank nodes and, even worse, to use resource when talking about 
> nodes in an RDF graph.  That's a problem with Jena, not RDF or W3C or 
> the web.  This working group should never use resource or Resource to 
> identify components of RDF graphs.

Well, then Sesame was also "stupid" to use Resource like that?

http://rdf4j.org/sesame/2.7/apidocs/org/openrdf/model/package-summary.html

Resource := The supertype of all RDF resources (URIs and blank nodes).

The two most widely used RDF APIs are using this terminology. Every 
developer looking at this stuff will use and understand this 
interpretation. Why doesn't RDF Schema have the root classes

rdfs:Node
     rdfs:Literal
     rdfs:Resource
         rdfs:Class
         rdf:Property

and the terminology would follow much more naturally? I am sure the RDF 
working group had good reasons for its current design, yet I admit I 
cannot reverse engineer those good reasons right now. Can anyone explain?

Thanks,
Holger

Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 08:10:54 UTC