W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

Re: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource")

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:05:31 -0400
Message-Id: <51663063-2864-11D9-A2FE-000A9580D8C0@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <sandro@w3.org>, <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>

On Oct 20, 2004, at 2:37, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> wrote:

> [This illustrates why] I don't think there's much utility in explicitly
> classifying a resource as a "web resource" -- because it reflects
> accessibility of representations of that resource, i.e. it reflects
> the behavior of the web in terms of that resource, but does not
> reflect any characteristic inherent in the resource itself. And since
> membership in that class of resources is transient, even if one
> encounters a statement "ex:foo rdf:type ex:WebResource." that doesn't
> mean that when they go to access a representation they won't get
> a 404 response -- since that statement could have been asserted quite
> some time ago, and in the meantime, all representations of that
> resource were removed.

I agree.

> The problem, of course, with trying to define properties of the URI
> is that you *can't* make any statements about the URI. E.g. the
> following is invalid RDF:
>    "http://example.com/foo"^^xsd:anyURI rdf:type <ex:ResolvableURI> .
> since, of course, literals can't be subjects. I tried to get
> typed literals allowed as subjects, since (a) they were new constructs,
> so it was not as drastic a change as allowing *any* literal to be
> a subject, and (b) they had very specific semantics, but no go.

I agree that the restriction on URIs in the subject in RDF is a mistake.
I forgot what happened to that comment process wise.
It is allowed in full N3, and I use it  often in practice.


> Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:05:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:06 UTC