RE: argument from authority considered pointless

++1.  The argument from authority is over the top.

They are entangled in formalisms.   The formalism 
that a URI uniquely identifies a "resource", and the 
definition of "resource" being nebulous, means that 
the URI formal definition does not meet the 
requirements of RDF.  This same issue has been 
repeatedly discussed and is never resolved.  A 
resource is time-varying and the RDF use isn't.

In short, it appears that URIs *as formally defined* 
are not appropriate for RDF *as formally specified*. 

It doesn't matter that the WWW is "arguably the 
most successful" whatever (the telephone system 
actually is and it took about 50 years to get that 
one right but nevermind).  WWW is not successful because 
of the formalism, but because the implementors 
look past the formalism and everywhere they see 
"resource" they substitute "server" or as 
Joshua says, "hypertext dispenser" and they 
move on.  

Ok, put the challenge back in the other 
court.  Roy, if the credential for discussing 
the issue is knowledge of or creation of libWWW, 
present the code in libWWW that declares and 
defines a "resource".  


From: Jeff Bone []

On Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003, at 13:37 US/Central, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> Roy Fielding intones:
>> Sandro, you aren't qualified to have that argument.
> Comments like the above - which are far from unusual in the URI space -
> do absolutely nothing to further the conversation.

With all due respect to Roy, and despite the fact that I agree with his 
position --- I have to second Simon's comments.  Argument from 
authority always counterproductive and usually insulting.  Impatience 
is one thing, but explaining yourself and your position is the price of 
such "authority."

Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 17:34:21 UTC