- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:32:15 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, Susie Stephens <susie.stephens@gmail.com>
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 18:05 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > >On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 15:59 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > > >It's in that sense that I think the TAG is reasonable in > >suggesting this text for the "Cool URIs..." document: > > > >"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." > > Sigh. If you can't see how unbelievably SILLY > this sounds to anyone outside our geeky W3C > world, I give up. "Resource" is an English word > with a definite meaning. Not everything is, in > fact, a resource. Hmm... I'm inclined to consider it progress that you're no longer arguing about identifier/name and you've now chosen another scab to pick at. ;-) > If someone were to come up to > me and say that he had decided to call everything > a 'foodle', I would think him eccentric. If he > told me he decided to call everything a > 'pitchfork', I would say he was mad, because many > things aren't pitchforks. Guess which category > the above falls into. I'm sympathetic to your point, there. "resource" is what the IETF standardization process produced. ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt ) Oh... and the W3C process, for that matter. (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#urisandlit ) But at the thesaurus.com level, the distance between 'resource' and 'thing' is substantial. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 01:32:42 UTC