Re: Redefining “resource”

On 25 May 2012, at 17:38, 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?
> 
> Set-B.

Ok. Note that you said in your initial message that your shoes are in Set-C.

Give me an example of something in Set-C then. Can anything identified by an HTTP URI ever be in Set-C?

Best,
Richard

(P.S. You said my left ear is in Set-C. My right ear must be in Set-B then?)




> 
> You may want to say Set-C and bring in the httpRange-14 resolution, but every time you do that you get a decade worth of trouble, since obviously as Set-B and C are disjoint, something can't be a member of both.
> 
> At least we're discussing the correct sets for once, normally this discussion happens between Set-B and Set-A, disregarding Set-C, which leads to very confused conversations between educated people.
> 
> Best, Nathan
> 
>>> 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 17:28:11 UTC