- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:54:01 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: >> Pat Hayes wrote: >> >>>> Can we please have some clarification here? >>> >>> Im as confused as you are. It seems to me that the whole story about >>> 'information resources' is muddled. I don't know what an "essential >>> characteristic" is. I was just responding to the ideas as best I can. >>> >>> I would prefer to simply say that some HTTP endpoints are considered >>> to be resources, while others are not. >> >> I guess you mean "information resources" here; all things are >> resources, still (in RDF/OWL speak)? > > No, I really did mean resources. If my URI is intended to denote, say, > Jupiter, then Jupiter is a resource (though that terminology should > change, IMO). But the thingie that catches my URI and redirects it to > something else, emitting a 303 as it does so: THAT thing is not a > resource at all, not even an information resource. Or at any rate, if it > is one, then you can only refer to it with a different URI, because my > URI denotes Jupiter. A different thingie, sure. But if it exists in the world (as networking thingies do) but isn't a "resource", then you've stopped using "Resource" in the inclusive sense given by http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#gloss "Resource (n.)(as used in RDF)(i) An entity; anything in the universe. (ii) As a class name: the class of everything; the most inclusive category possible." I agree that it's an unfortunate word to use; I prefer "thing". Too late for existing specs, but I see no reason to prolong the agony. "Information Thing" is no worse than "Information Resource"... Dan
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 10:54:11 UTC