Basic Issue 2: Our Ontologies are Information Resources

Hi all,

I would consider this issue relevant to WebId in the sense that we might 
need to publish a vocab at some point. Or that other people would like 
to extend profile descriptions. We will also have things like public 
keys, where the issues will be the same. non-info vs info. The issue was 
originally raised by Dan Brickley in 2005: 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0044.html

I am not talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology here, but 
about our ontologies and vocabularies. The main intention of defining 
these is to share them, i.e. put them into Unicode. We even invented 
several languages like OWL=Web Ontology Language for that, where 
Language is a tool for communication in general.

It matches the WebArch definition: 
https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources  .  I can totally see that 
the RDF serialization is a full representation of the ontology resource. 
303 See Other definition does not hold: 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-303-see-other

"A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the origin server does 
not have a representation of the target resource 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#target.resource> that can 
be transferred by the server over HTTP.  "

I can see that there might be a different opinions about classes and 
properties. I would probably argue that the server has a representation, 
i.e. the written axioms. Was this part ultimately discussed or decided?

-- Sebastian