- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:49:00 -0400
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
resources and URIsPat Hayes wrote: [[ It is easy to read this as saying that the representation is 'about' the resource: that it 'refers to' or 'describes' the resource; but this is evidently incompatible with the notion of a resource as something that must be 'part of' an informational network. ]] I generally wholeheartedly agree with what you have said. Quibble: might not Chandra be considered 'part of' an informational network -- or ought we reserve this phrase for something that is connected to a physical network. IOW: is "network" a synonym for "graph"? Hmmm ... what really is the definition of a physical network? One might thus consider "Chandra" "on the web". Should we reserve the phrase "on the web" for things connected by streams of electrons, and/or photons and/or ??? -- no, that wouldn't work because Chandra emits photons which are sensed by a device which emits electrons i.e. a "router" :-) no? So by what right is there something which *isn't* on the web? Back to our regularly scheduled programming ... Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 19:49:08 UTC