Re: naive question: why prefer absolute URIs to # URIs for linked data?

On 10/20/11 5:26 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>> On 10/20/11 4:08 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org>    wrote:
>>>> What document?  Pointer please?
>>> Sorry, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/
>>>
>>>
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> I note that you have an entry for information resource in the glossary but
>> nothing for:
>>
>> 1. resource
> Other than in the collocation 'information resource', the word is used
> only once, and there not in a technical sense. Did you understand it
> to be in an undisclosed technical sense? I hate to give up a perfectly
> useful ordinary English word (look it up if you want to know what I
> meant), but I guess I should reword that sentence to avoid it, since
> 'resource' has been defined technically in so many different ways,
> with so many different connotations, that it is now nearly useless in
> web-land.
>
>> 2. non information resource.
> If I tell you what a dog is, is it necessary then to also tell you
> what a non-dog is?
>
> I do not use this term and take pains not to. I don't even want to
> evoke it as a category. The subject has been covered many times on
> this list, and this particular report does not need to take a stand.
>
> Since I believe that 'information resource' as a type distinction has
> derailed this whole discussion, and if it's useful at all, is emergent
> rather than fundamental, I do not want to say anything that suggests
> that something exists that is not an information resource. I think
> such a world model would be unreasonable, but it is not ruled out by
> any consideration that is supposed to arise in this document. And (as
> David Booth keeps pointing out) the existence of so-called NIRs is not
> forced by webarch-like considerations, only by ontological
> considerations, which no matter how compelling, are (as far as I've
> been able to determine) out of scope.
>
> It would be nice to eliminate the 'information resource' category from
> this document. It just seems to fan the flames. I believe it's
> possible - I have done so in other pieces of writing with good results
> - but I haven't attempted it in this particular document yet.

That's another route to the essence of my post i.e., why not remove it 
since it sticks out in a really awkward way?

>> My comments are more to do with completion and less to do with opinion -- my
>> views on either aren't a secret to anyone :-)
> Appreciated, but distractions can inflame.

So I can safely conclude:

1. resource -- distraction.
2. non information resource -- distraction.
3. information resource -- a distraction that's on its way out?

Kingsley

>   The fewer the assumptions,
> the easier it should be to swallow.
>
> Best
> Jonathan
>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President&    CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen