- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:05:31 -0400
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <sandro@w3.org>, <Norman.Walsh@Sun.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. Tim > Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:05:40 UTC