- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:18:42 -0400
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Mark Baker wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 04:04:18PM -0400, Christopher B Ferris wrote: > > No, it is not. > > Sorry, I thought it was obvious from the context of this discussion > that we were limiting ourselves to RDF. > If that is the case, then when RDF says "resource" read "thing" and URIreferences are perfectly good opaque identifiers for "things". I see the architectural issue, but realize that RDF itself (in isolation) has no problem to the extent that a URIreference is being used as an opaque identifier, and to the extent that RDF itself doesn't dereference any URIreferences -- RDF doesn't directly deal with representations, just "resources" which are actually "things"*** Jonathan *** a "thing" is the union of RFC 2396 defined "resources" and "nodes" within an abstract document which are identified with fragment ids
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 16:24:47 UTC