- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:21:16 -0500
- To: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- CC: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>, RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
David Menendez wrote: > At 12:27 PM -0500 2002-11-21, Frank Manola wrote: > >> Also, if you don't like "resource", you might get more bang for your >> argument taking it to the authors of RFC 2396 (see, e.g., >> http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt) or to uri@w3.org. This isn't >> an RDF-specific usage, after all. > > > What about URI references which include fragment identifiers? My reading > of RFC 2396 is that <http://example.org/> and <http://example.org/#foo> > refer to the same resource. They don't (necessarily) refer to the same resource in RDF, and there's been a lot of discussion about that point, including discussion in uri@w3.org (the current RDF Concepts document refers to "RDF URI references", with a discussion of what equality means for them, and we try to be consistent in the other documents). Note though that the origin of the current issue was why "resource" was used at all, as opposed to something like "existent", and "resource" as defined in RFC 2396 is the basis of this usage. --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 09:04:18 UTC