Re: Redefining “resource” (was: Re: Drop “g-boxes”, talk about “stateful resources”)

On 2012-05-25, at 12:28, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Could we do this? To see how deep a change this wold require, I looked for uses of “resource” throughout the specs.
>  • RDF Concepts doesn't really rely on the term besides defining it.
>  • RDF Semantics mostly uses it in the form of the IRI rdfs:Resource.
>  • RDF/XML has it all over the place due to the rdf:resource attribute.
>  • Turtle almost doesn't use it.
>  • SPARQL uses it quite a few times, but nothing too difficult to change.
>  • RDF Schema uses it *very* heavily.
>  • So does the old Primer.
>  • OWL2 barely uses it, except in the RDF-based semantics and in the
>    RDF/XML rdf:resource attribute
>  • URIs and IRIs are “Uniform/Internationalized Resource Identifiers”, so the
>    term implicitly creeps in wherever we talk about URIs and IRIs.
>  • RDF is the Resource Description Framework…
> I don't know. Sounds like a difficult thing to do and tons of work. Anyone seriously thinks this would be a good idea?


For me it's in the same area as "literals as subjects", nice idea, but just too disruptive.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ

Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 11:36:23 UTC