Re: Redefining “resource”

Hi Nathan,

On 25 May 2012, at 15:55, Nathan wrote:
> Roughly, there is the set of everything named with an IRI, Set-A ("resources")
> then Set-B, a proper subset of Set-A, the set of all things which can be interacted with via one of the stack of network/internet protocols, including http/ftp/tor/spdy
> then Set-C, another proper subset of Set-A which comprises of everything else, Set-A subtract Set-B, which includes my shoes and your left ear.

You're contradicting yourself.

If it has an HTTP URI, then I can, *by definition*, interact with it through the internet stack.

Now, RDF insists that an HTTP URI can denote anything, including your shoes and my left ear.

Ergo, *everything* is in Set-B, and Set-C is empty. Shoes and ears are in Set-B.

> Personally though, I still think that Pat's suggestion of using the term "RDF Source(s)" where necessary could be used to skirt around all of this nicely, using a clear non overloaded term.

So, the things that REST calls resources, we should call “sources”. And everything else, we should call “resources”. That's a bit backwards.


Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 15:49:59 UTC