Re: Drop “g-boxes”, talk about “stateful resources”

On 5/24/12 12:45 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> The RDF usage of "resource" for "anything that can be referred to" does make any usage which restricts it this seriously rather problematic. We have had this problem now for at least 9 years.
> I'd like to see an example that shows this difficulty.
>
RDF usage of "resource" for "anything that can be referred to" is 
eternally problematic.  The aforementioned utterance doesn't take into 
consideration resource medium variety. As a result, its a major 
HttpRange-14 imbroglio vector.

How about using "resource" in a more qualified way. For instance, a Web 
accessible and addressable resource that's comprised of content 
constrained by the RDF data model is an RDF resource. This kind of 
resource is also explicitly associated with a mime type.

The paragraph above caters for the fact that abstract real-world objects 
described by RDF resources aren't any of the following:

1. resources associated with a mime type
2. resources native to the web medium.

Yes, my embodiment is technically a resource, but not of the medium: 
World Wide Web.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen