This is currently a live working document, being a collection of suggestions from participants in the W3C RDF Interest and RDF Core Working Groups.
MH: I've tentatively re-arranged the material and added some background (without removing much) with two objectives:
I've inserted some background material into the text in a hope that this will allow mixing of text in situ and avoid the sudden introduction of incompatible viewpoints from out of the blue.
While not wishing to produce a redundant document, I feel that a `tutorial' glossary is useful to help a reader form an internally consistent language before receiving the precise definitions of the specs. It is therefore important not to give the user redolent but false images which may cause him/her to resist the finer descriptions when they are encountered. Definitions here should be `natural' and easily assimilated.
RFC2396 (in context of defining URI) defines resourceA resource can be anything that has identity. Familiar examples include an electronic document, an image, a service (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a collection of other resources. Not all resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound books in a library can also be considered resources. The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of entities, not necessarily the entity which corresponds to that mapping at any particular instance in time. Thus, a resource can remain constant even when its content---the entities to which it currently corresponds---changes over time, provided that the conceptual mapping is not changed in the process
Note that RFC2396 uses this term in a more restricted sense, to mean some data represents some aspect of a Web Resource.
[See RDF M&S section 5] Note that an RDF resource is not necessarily a web resource, though any web resource can be an RDF resource.Consider: http://foo.com/#a and http://foo.com/#b may name distinct RDF resources, but if used to access web resources they both refer to the common web resource http://foo.com/
This distinction between "Web resource" and "RDF Resource" is not a desired outcome, but an interpretation of different uses of the term "resource" in different documents.
Some resources may be both. In discussion of RDF, this term is often used to mean RDF Resource.
RDFM&S section 5: There is a set called Statements, each element of which is a triple of the form {pred, sub, obj} Where pred is a property (member of Properties), sub is a resource (member of Resources), and obj is either a resource or a literal (member of Literals).
I don't find this very helpful as an aid to understanding (`possibly') [MH]
Exactly what counts as a suitable denotation for some kinds of expression has been the subject of much debate, eg assertional sentences may be said to denote truth-values, or propositions, or functions from possible worlds, etc.. Typically, a given semantic theory for a human language takes a particular stance on such issues, providing a precise analysis of some range of intuitive meanings while excluding others from consideration. For formal languages, the range of denotations is usually specified mathematically. In formal semantics, an interpretation of a language is specified by rules which determine the denotations of complex expressions in terms of the denotations of their subexpressions, often called a truth-recursion.
Note. The relationship between a sign and what it denotes - the denotation relationship - is not considered to have any particular causal or physical significance, in general. Philosophers have noted that if denotation were a physical relationship then it would travel faster than light every time an astronomer mentions a star. Similarly, there is no way, in general, to compute the denotation of a name from the name itself. Both of these observations follow from the fact that the denotation of any expression is only defined relative to an interpretation of the language or notation in which the expression occurs.
John McCarthy at http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/generality/node6.html:
Reasoning about knowledge, belief or goals requires extensions of the domain of objects reasoned about. For example, a program that does backward chaining on goals used them directly as sentences, e.g. on(Block1,Block2), i.e. the symbol on is used as a predicate constant of the language. However, a program that wants to say directly that on(Block1,Block2) should be postponed until on(Block2,Block3) has been achieved, needs a sentence like precedes(on(Block2,Block3),on(Block1,Block2)), and if this is to be a sentence of first-order logic, then the symbol on must be taken as a function symbol, and on(Block1,Block2) regarded as an object in the first order language.
This process of making objects out of sentences and other entities is called reification. It is necessary for expressive power but again leads to complications in reasoning. It is discussed in (McCarthy 1979).
Tim Berners-Lee has acknowledged that the last paragraph is the intent of reification in RDF (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Jan/0048.html).
[[[TBD]]]
Dan Brickley maintains a page of RDF specification issues at http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/.
Brian McBride also has a list of issues at http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/rdf/issues.htm. Against each listed issue are pointers to messages on the RDF IG mailing list, and/or other relevant threads of commentary.
Some related resources / context:
http://www.w3.org/Help/siteindex W3C site index / technology keywords
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/glossary.html Glossary from 'Weaving the Web'.
http://www.w3.org/WCA/ Web Characterisation Initiative (historical interest)
http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-terms/ Web Characterization Terminology & Definitions Sheet W3C Working Draft 24-May-1999 HTTP-NG Activity Statement (historical interest)
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/Activity.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-HTTP-NG-interfaces/ HTTP-NG Web Interfaces (an attempt to formalise our a notion of URIs, resources etc in terms of a distributed object type hierarchy).
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/ Naming and Addressing: URIs, URLs, ...
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt -- URIs
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html -- for HTTP 1.1's notion of URI, 'resource', entity etc...
Insightful comments were provided by Pierre-Antoine Champin.
[RDFM&S]
[RFC2396]
[[[TBD]]]