Re: Resources and URIs

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 18:51, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
[...]
> > "This document specifies the syntax of URIs, which are a form of 
> > global identifier used in Web protocols and languages.  Particular 
> > uses of URIs, and their intended meanings in various contexts, are 
> > described in other specifications. In general, the entities referred 
> > to or identified by URIs when used in Web contexts are called 
> > "resources"., but this document does not specify the nature of 
> > resources or to restrict resources to any particular category of 
> > entities."
> >
> > and leave it at that.  Nothing else at all about resources, no 
> > examples, no discussion.
> 
> No.  Look, you guys aren't the ones who have to answer questions in the
> absence of definitions.

Which guys? Pat, as editor of RDF and OWL semantics, does
get a lot of relevant questions pointed his way.

As do I, as W3C URI Activity lead, and in support of your
co-author, TimBL.

As does Danbri as RDF IG chair.

But I don't think that's really relevant in any case...

>   I do.  I refuse to leave what has been deployed
> in an unspecified state,

I don't see how this would leave anything deployed in
an unspecified state. Please give an example.


>  regardless of how many arguments that causes
> in the Semantic Web.  If SemWeb needs a better definition, then its
> proponents can reach consensus on what it should be and provide me
> with an appropriate text that has no adverse impact on deployed
> implementations of URI.
> 
> I am not even remotely confused about what resource means.

[It's very tempting to answer that argument by assertion
in kind, but I don't suppose that would be constructive.]

>   That does
> not mean the definition can't be improved.
> 
> ....Roy
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 22:52:23 UTC