W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: #rdfms-literals-as-resources in scope?

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:38:45 -0700
Message-Id: <v04210115b773c833ddaf@[]>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Graham Klyne wrote:
> >
> > At 02:52 PM 7/10/01 -0700, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> > >resource (constant) = URI, name, referring expression
> >
> > I think that's clearly at odds with RFC2396 (which seems the nearest thing
> > we have to a universally accepted starting point for defining 
>these things):
> >
> > [RFC 2396, section 1.1]:
> >
> >        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.
>Hm. From reading M&S it feels though that Resources are
>URI-identifiable/-ied things.

Sure, but
(1) they are the things, not the names that, er, identify them
(2) it isnt absolutely clear what 'identify' means, but many people 
seem to think that it means 'denote'
(3) It isnt clear whether being a resource means actually having a 
URI, or only being the kind of thing that could possibly have a URI, 
ie anything at all; your -iable/ied contrast.

>I think this is *the* top-priority issue
>that we have to clarify and hold on (e-)paper.

It sure would be good to get this clarified.  Mutual 
misunderstandings about these issues seem to get in the way of just 
about every 'semantic webbish' discussion.

Pat Hayes

(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 17:38:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC