W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

RE: My action item on Moby Dec, issue 14, etc

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:21:46 +0100
To: "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>
Cc: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000e01c260b9$6fec0430$887ba8c0@mitchum>

> From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@neonym.net] 
> And, depending on what RDF expects the definition of 
> 'resource' to be, using another process to do that work may 
> have been a mistake...

Interpretations are standard stuff in a model theory. Perhaps 'process'
was a poor choice of word. RDF uses 'mapping'; the one that maps URIs to
resources (or labels to the world) is called 'IS'.

> What is RDFs definition of a 'resource'?

Not usefully different to HTTP's afaict; a resource is whatever a URI
names. Nonetheless if RDF held an 1-1 mappings as an axiomatic, the MT
wouldn't require the IS mapping. I suppose one could argue that IS is a
redundant artefact from model theoretic semantics in the large, or the
Web architecture provides IS 'for free' due to authoritative naming;
neither seems an entirely satisfactory way to show the seamntic and the
actual Web tee up axiomatically.

Bill de hÓra 
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 11:23:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:54 UTC