W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

Re: resources and URIs

From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Date: 18 Jul 2003 10:16:03 -0400
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-tag@w3.org, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Message-Id: <1058537763.23361.87.camel@blackdell.neonym.net>

On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 05:09, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> Micheal Mealling writes:
> 
> > ... is it possible to concretely constrain the term
> > 'resource' as used in 2396 so that a 'resource' only comes into
> > existence once a URI is assigned to it (i.e. it becomes part of the
> > Web)? Then we could create another term for those things that could
> > become resources if a URI were assigned? I think that language
> > clarification would really help....
> 
> Following the approach outlined in
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0172.html
> 
> perhaps a useful ontology for resources could be something
> along the lines of the following:
> 
> --
> 
> webarch:WebResource 
>    rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Resource;
>    rdfs:comment "A resource which is denoted by a URI which
>                  is intended to be resolvable via HTTP to a
>                  representation." .
> 
> webarch:Representation
>    rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Resource;
>    rdfs:comment "A digitally encoded data entity reflecting the 
>                  state and/or nature of a resource." .
>     
> swarch:SemanticWebResource
>    rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Resource;
>    rdfs:comment "A resource which is referred to by URI
>                  in one or more semantic web statements." .
> 
> swarch:SemanticWebStatement
>    rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Statement;
>    rdfs:comment "A statement which is asserted in one or more
>                  web resources." .
>  

So a WebResource is only available via HTTP? So none of my applications
are part of the web?


> A resource, in general, need not be denoted by any URI, nor
> need be referred to in any semantic web statement.

And I think that's what's confusing. I would really prefer it if
something not be a 'Resource' if it didn't have a URI. Call it an
'object' or a 'flobitz' or something else. The definition of 'on the
Web' really isn't all that useful.

> Given the above definitions, a WebResource cannot exist without
> being denoted by a URI that is intentionally resolvable via HTTP to 
> a representation. 

I don't use HTTP (scheme or protocol).....

> A SemanticWebResource need not be denoted by a URI, but does
> need to be referred to by some semantic web statement made
> in some web resource, ultimately expressed in some representation.

Sounds fine for the SW.....

> Yet a given resource may be both a web resource and a semantic
> web resource. Those are not disjunct classes of things, but
> rather intersecting classes.

As I've said before, I think set language here is a mistake...I would
state this differently: 
Yet a given SemanticWebResource is can also be subclass of WebResource
if it has a URI assigned to it.

> The web architecture is thus concerned with WebResources and 
> Representations (among other things).
> 
> The semantic web architecture is concerned with 
> SemanticWebResources and SemanticWebStatements (among
> other things).

This I'm starting to like. Fix that dependency on 'http' and I could go
for it....

> Particular agents may only be concerned with Web Resources,
> or only with Semantic Web Resources, or only the intersection
> of Web Resources and Semantic Web Resources. But they're
> all resources.

You're fine until you get to that last unqualified 'resource' at the end
of the sentence. Where is the definition of that word taken from?
Hopefully not 2396.....

> One can then extend the above ontology to include predicates
> for relating resources to their representations, synonymous
> denotations of resources by multiple URIs, etc. (here's
> where the Semantic Web extends/augments the Web, making
> explicit the semantics of web behavior in relation to the
> universe of resources).

Cleanly defining all of that would be useful....

> <other examples snipped>

I'm fine with using OWL to cleanly delineate the relationships between
different definitions of 'resource'. I'd just want to make sure we get
the relationships right. The dependency on HTTP is one that really bugs
me...

-MM
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 10:17:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC