- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:37:59 -0500
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, Susie Stephens <susie.stephens@gmail.com>
> >7. "On the Semantic Web, URIs identify not just Web documents, but >also real-world objects like people and cars, and even abstract >ideas and non-existing things like a mythical unicorn. We call all >these things resources." > >Of course many people would consider the Traditional Web to include >mailto: links. Suggest: > >"On the Semantic Web, http: URIs identify not just Web documents, >but also real-world objects like people and cars, and even abstract >ideas and non-existing things like a mythical unicorn. We call all >these things resources." This seems to me to embody the central error which is causing so much trouble. In what sense can a URI (or indeed any name: the fact that is a URI is irrelevant in this case) be said to "identify" a real-world or nonexistent entity? The direct answer is, it CANT. To even use this word "identify" in this sense and in this kind of a case, is clearly and provably WRONG. But in any case, even if you disagree with me on this point, what is certainly beyond dispute is that the WAY that a URI 'identifies' a person, car or non-existent unicorn is utterly different from the way that it identifies an information resource. And that the architecture, or even the existence, of the Web is completely irrelevant to this non-informational-resource kind of 'identification'. It does not depend on any kind of transfer protocol; it does not require any kind of physical connection between computer systems; it "works" (if reference can be said to 'work') in exactly the same way for 'identifiers' on the Web as it does for names in all human-language texts from ancient Mesapotamian clay tablets to the New York Times. It is NOTHING NEW. So, I would suggest, it is inappropriate to invent a new, alien, terminology for referring to it. The words that are already in widespread use for this relationship of 'identifying' a person, car or unicorn are 'name', 'naming', 'reference' and (slightly more technically) 'denotes'. These also have the great advantage, compared to your non-standard and confusing usage, of not having any connotation that the relationship allows one to some 'get' from the name to the thing named, or that architecture or computation plays any significant role in this relationship. In addition, that final sentence really is ridiculous. "We call all these things resources." All WHAT things? It sounds rather as though you are saying 'We call everything resources.' If that really is what you mean, I suggest it would be extremely helpful if you would actually say this, directly. (If it sounds ridiculous; well, I rest my case.) I would note that there are already many humble words that can be used for this purpose, such as 'thing' and 'entity'. I also note that this is not the sense of "resource" given in any English dictionary or that used by the Internet pioneers such as Engelbart (who may have been the first to use this word when talking about hyperlinked networks.) On the other hand, if this interpretation is wrong; if there is anything - even anything imaginary, even anything *logically impossible* - which you would NOT call a 'resource', then please, please give an example right here, to help the poor confused plebs such as myself, who are struggling to make sense of your oracular pronouncements, some idea what you are talking about. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 15:38:16 UTC