W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: [URI vs. URIViews] draft-frags-borden-00.txt

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:36:45 -0500
Message-ID: <051801c1bc99$0ee39aa0$0301a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: "me" <me@aaronsw.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > So what I've said isn't much, the effect is to say: The RDF usage is
> > correct, but I am saying it in a way that allows non-RDF folks to
> > to use RFC 2396 unchanged.
> So could we take your approach, but do away with the new notion of
> 'subresource' that it introduces? Or do you claim that each 'subresource'
> can never have a plain URI name? (if so, this gets us into the murky
> territory of accounting for how naming works, and who can assign names
> to what... let's not go there!).

Yes. There is no need for the RDF community to concern itself with
"subresources". That is to say, the notion of "subresource" is encompased by
the RDF usage of the term "resource". I am thinking that the term
"subresource" is itself misleading, and strongly considering releasing an
update, replacing the term "subresource" with the term "node", and RDF would
be just as good to replace "resource" with "node" or "thing" (ala DAML).
i.e. I have no strong reason to believe that the RDF relationship (if any)

http://example.org/Unicorn and

is any different than the relationship between

http://example.org/Unicorn and

For example the an RDF document might assert the first URI to denote a
"Unicorn" and the second (in either case) to denote "Pat Hayes' Home Page"
which is to say that we treat URIreferences as opaque identifiers.

Perhaps RDF might say something along the lines: "The names of things are
created according to the syntax of URI references [RFC2396]." Or, if there
is a strong desire to use the "resource" term: something like "RDF's use of
the term 'resource' differs from RFC 2396."

Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 13:48:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:59 UTC