Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class

Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote on 02/20/2015 10:53:02 AM:

> From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
> To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 02/20/2015 10:53 AM
> Subject: Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class
> 
> I believe that ³real word object² in the Semantic Web speak doesn¹t mean
> that it has a physical representation. It is also a concept.
> 
> In that sense, a user account is as much of a real world thing as a
> person. 

Irene,

I agree that the term "real-world object" is not ideal since, of course, 
computer files, web documents are real. In [1], the universe of all 
resources is partitioned into two disjoint sets: web documents and 
real-world objects. So a real-world object is by definition any resource 
that is not a web document. This means that unicorns, and other imaginary 
concepts, are classified as real-world objects for the purposes of 
discussing how their URIs should be handled by HTTP. If I enter the URI of 
a unicorn in a web browser I should get a web document about unicorns.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

Received on Saturday, 21 February 2015 22:03:11 UTC