RE: Information resources?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> []On Behalf Of
> ext Jon Hanna
> Sent: 09 September, 2004 14:44
> To:
> Subject: RE: Information resources?
> Quoting "" <>:
> > Yes. A "web resource" is a subclass of "resource".
> > 
> > A "resource" is a "resource".
> > A "web resource" is a "resource".
> > A "representation" is a "resource".
> No, a representation is a resource only if there is a URI (or 
> perhaps an RDF
> BNode) for the represetation. 

Let's be sure we mean the same thing by "resource".

*Anything* can be a resource, whether it is named by a URI
or denoted by an anonymous node in an RDF graph.

However, if we are to refer to a resource in a way that is
significant to either the web or semantic web machinery, then
we need to use URIs, URIrefs, or anonymous nodes.

I.e. in section 2.2 of AWWW, it says 

"By design a URI identifies one resource."

The thing identified does not become a resource because it
is named by a URI. Rather, we use URIs to identify resources
(which exist regardless of how we refer to them).

> Most of the time there isn't. 
> It's still a thing
> though, so it could potentially be a resource. It's URI would 
> not be the same
> as the URI of the resource it represents.

Agreed. The URI used to denote a resource should be distinct
from the URI to denote its representation (unless, of course,
the resource and representation are the same -- as would be
the case of the representation of a representation, which
would correspond to a bit-equal copy of itself).

> > > The difference between the web and semantic web layer is 
> > > whether having *any*
> > > understanding of what that resource is an AI-complete 
> problem or not.
> > 
> > I think I agree with that ;-)
> We've agreed twice in one day. Maybe I'm not feeling well or 
> something ;)



Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 12:32:10 UTC