- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:30:24 -0600
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[no time for a more complete reply just now, but in case I don't back to this for a while, I'll send this much now...] Aaron Swartz wrote: > > On 2001-12-06 11:14 PM, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote: [...] > > The RDF spec and the URI spec are orthogonal and don't form > > this sort of conflict. > > The RDF claims it describes Resources, no? it provides a framework for describing resources, yes. > It calls itself a Resource > Description Framework. The URI spec seems to go out of its way to say that > URIs with fragmentIDs in them are _not_ Resources, no, it says strings with #fragmentIDs are not URIs. The defintion of resource that it gives isn't limited in the way you suggest: Resource A 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. > yet RDF describes them. > Perhaps we should rename RDF the Resource and Other Thing Framework for > 'Laborating (ROTFL). ;-) > > To drive home this point, I quote from the URI RFC again: > > [[[ > [...] A URI reference may be absolute or relative, > and may have additional information attached in the form of a > fragment identifier. However, "the URI" that results from such a > reference includes only the absolute URI after the fragment > identifier (if any) is removed and after any relative URI is resolved > to its absolute form. > ]]] That text makes a clear point about syntax, but not about any relationship between absolute-URI-references and resources. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 14:30:29 UTC