- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:17:24 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: ""Jonathan Borden" <jonathan" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "me" <me@aaronsw.com>, "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
[...] >>The term "sub resource" is introduced, to define what a URI reference >>identifies. > >That is meaningless in general, however. Anything can be a resource. >What is a "subresource" of, say, a unicorn or a galaxy? You seem (?) >to be confusing a URL sense of 'resource' meaning: part of a >retrievable web document, with an RDF/URI sense of 'resource' >meaning: entity referred to by an RDF name. (This is the familiar >use/mention confusion that seems to resurface in these discussions >about every six weeks.) The resources that RDF *refers* to are, >typically, not the kind of things that can possibly live on any web >or be transferred by any kind of transfer protocol. The resources >that RDF *uses* are pieces of syntax - ultimately, character strings, >in effect - that can be easily considered to be a mime type or a >media type without straining these concepts unduly. RDF *documents* >have parts that are identified by (not referred to by) urirefs with >fragments. Those are the only things that we need to be concerned >with here. What RDF interprets them to *mean* is a matter which is >internal to RDF, just as the operational significance of a fragID >locating a place in a jpeg image might be a private matter to >Fireworks. wonderful! as the resources that RDF *refers to* can actually be anything, they could be pieces of RDF syntax and as such resources that RDF can *use* as well this could happen after *getting* them from the Web e.g. using HTTP and it doesn't matter that the fragment is not in the GET header and that we get back all the triples in that RDF document because one can always assert more because things are monotonic in RDF -- Jos De Roo
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 09:18:35 UTC