- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: 10 Jul 2003 12:04:37 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, tbray@textuality.com, hardie@qualcomm.com, uri@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 11:59, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > An > > SW-resource is a first order object that can make statements about > > itself such as its uniqueness, how its compared to others, etc. > > I'm not sure where you get this idea, but I can't let it pass > unchallenged. > > In the Last Call Working Draft of _RDF Semantics_ (the current spec) > [1], "resource" is defined as "An entity; anything in the universe." > (In this kind of formal logic text, "universe" means "universe of > discourse", not just the real world you and I live in. Unicorns are > certainly resources by this definition.) > > This is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same entended meaning for > "resource" as in RFC 2396 and RFC 2396bis. And that's what the RDF Core > WG intended, as far as I know. And that was a layer violation and a mistake... Just because the members of the set of RDF Resources have a direct mapping to the members of the set of URI Resources doesn't mean that the semantics are the same. If they were then you would be saying that all applications that use URIs would then have to be aware of RDF's equivalence semantics. It's like saying that since a domain-name returns two different IP addresses that you can use the same routing table to get to both since they denote the same logical host. That's a layer violation... -MM
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 12:36:42 UTC