- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:33:01 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dan Connolly wrote: [...] > > Another subtlety that isn't relevant to the ID/about > > issue is whether 'resource' is used in the general > > sense of 'anything in the domain of discourse' > > (i.e. things you can refer to using absolute-URIs-with-fragments) > > or in the stricter sense of, roughly, 'something you can > > get at via the network' (i.e. things you > > can refer to using absolute-URIs-without-fragments). > > I've never seen a clear definition of this 'stricter' sense. Well, you did a pretty good job of making one up: > 'those things in the domain that can be named with RFC2396 > identifier strings' in particular, absolute URIs, without fragments, from RFC2396. >? Is there anything more we can say about those things? There isn't much more that I intend to say about them; some folks, though, have suggested that they're disjoint from properties, though; i.e. that dc:title can't be both a thing that you can HTTP GET *and* an RDF property. We need better terms just to have a coherent discussion with such folks! And as Roy Fielding pointed out, RFC2396 itself uses 'resource' only in the stricter sense; he (among others) haven't bought in to the way the RDF spec uses the term. [...] > > The traditional logic-literature > > term for the more general concept is 'object'; I'd > > be happy to start using that in these WG discussions. > > 'Object Description Framework'? Catchy :) Ugh... I didn't make the connection to the title... nor to the acronym 'RDF' itself. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 15:34:12 UTC