Re: Redefining “resource”

On 5/25/12 9:41 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> -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
>
>
>

We don't have to redefine 'Resource'. All we have to do is assume that 
readers of the spec understand that a URI denotes an entity and URLs 
identify resources. That also means that a generic HTTP URI can denote 
an entity and -- via magic of indirection -- identify a resource that's 
comprised of RDF content that describes said URI's referent.

We've finally separated 'Entity' and 'Resource'. Hence my comment in an 
earlier post:

http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris  identifies a "resource" and "denotes" 
an entity. As for the actual entity in question, this is clarified when 
you de-reference the identifier and discern resource content.

-- 

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