- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:40:07 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Kingsley, On 24 May 2012, at 18:40, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > 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. But I suppose you still want to be able to refer to yourself with a URI? Then we get to the funny situation where some URIs — Uniform Resource Identifiers — identify things that are not resources. I don't think that redefining the meaning of “resource” is realistically achievable at this stage. (Not a comment on whether the term makes sense or not! I just think we are stuck with it. Blame it on the TAG.) Best, Richard
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 18:41:21 UTC