- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:42:46 -0700
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <uri@w3c.org>
> > What is wrong with saying: > > > > A resource can be anything that can be named. > - could in principle be assigned a name > ... gets us back into resources are just things territory, Yeah, that's exactly what I meant to say. Isn't that what everyone else is saying? Does it eliminate the ambiguity to say: "A resource is anything that can be assigned a name for purposes of identification" This seems to address Pat's concerns -- some things are, indeed, unnamable. Those things are not "resources"; everything else is. > - could be mentioned by name (because it has one) > the latter view, roughly the "to be is to be > the value of a uri" view of 2396 resources, is one Wow, I am surprised that anyone would want to stipulate that something must already have a URI assigned to qualify as a "resource". What possible use could there be in trying to argue about *that*?
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 13:42:55 UTC