RDF concepts, section 2.4.2

At 12:07 PM 9/20/02 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:

>I got around to reading the latest RDF Concepts WD 
>(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/) and found the 
>following in sect 2.4.2.
>"Some URIrefs may indicate web resources, and a node thus labelled is 
>presumed to denote that resource. Other URIrefs may represent abstract 
>ideas or values rather than a retreivable [sic] Web resource. "
>Hmm; so RDF officially doesn't believe in a 1-1 mapping between URI 
>references and resources?  Or does the notion of a "retrievable Web 
>resource" need formalizing as a subclass of Resource? -Tim

Hmmm... I think you may be reading more into that than was intended (which 
is no excuse for poor wording) ...

I've never been sure if the mapping was 1-1 or N-1:  I can (almost) see 
arguments either way.

There was an intent in those words to distinguish between web-retrievable 
and non-web-retrievable resources, but only to the extent of pointing out 
that some URIrefs used in RDF may refer to things that are not web 
retrievable.  I'm not sure that that calls for a formalized subclass of 

Propbably, far closer to the issue you're tackling here is section 4.2 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid103660) which 
hints (but does not assert) that the distinction between web-retrievable 
and abstract resources may lie in the '#'...

The intent here (i.e. section 4.2) is not to forge some new principle, but 
to present an explanation of the way RDF is used (and seems to work) that 
is consistent with expectations of "classical" web behaviour.


Graham Klyne

Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 03:47:24 UTC