- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 17:19:01 +0100
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, RDF-WG Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 25 May 2012, at 17:09, 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.
>
> False, I said "all things which can be interacted with via one of the stack of network/internet protocols". I did not say "named with an HTTP URI".
So an HTTP URI that returns 303 and identifies your shoes. Is that in set B or in set C?
Thanks,
Richard
>
> Only some things in the universe can be interacted with via an internet/network protocol, not all things, thus subset, and thus set's B and C exist.
>
> Also worth noting that naming something with an HTTP URI does not mean that you can interact with it through the internet stack, or through HTTP.
>
>>> 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.
>> Best,
>> Richard
>
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 16:20:31 UTC