Re: Redefining “resource” (was: Re: Drop “g-boxes”, talk about “stateful resources”) from Dan Brickley on 2012-05-25 (public-rdf-wg@w3.org from May 2012)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:41:38 +0300
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, RDF-WG Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpUFAcc2pByd2CG-96=srndw3Amu=cbELt+vNDh2MqZxw@mail.gmail.com>

-2 on redefining 'Resource'.

The 1997 era specs tried using it in that way, but there has never
ever been a clear account of the class of things that are picked out
vs rejected. Deciding on which things are legally RESTy in this sense
is a huge exercise in ontologising, and not something that should be
baked into the core concepts. By contrast, "Resource is our word for
'thing'" is pretty straightforward to explain.

imho etc,

Dan

Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 13:43:40 UTC