Re: URIs, used in RDF, that do not have associated documentation

On 4/2/12 10:07 AM, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> Why don't you consider resources to be in the HTTP universe? That on
> caught me off guard. Both the RDF specification and httpRange-14 said
> that resources denoted/identified by HTTP URIs can be anything.
And therein lies the "resource" conflation that just won't go away. In 
that context, most readers assuming that anything is a "resource". Well 
that might be true, but all resources aren't of the same medium. Thus, 
when the narrative is about the Web medium we have to qualify what 
resources are talking about.

This whole Linked Data effort is about documents that describe *things* 
(or entities). Some of these *things* are Web resources (whole 
representation exists in electronic form on said medium). Naturally, 
there are other *things* that some may regard as "resources" when 
crafting description (or descriptor) documents (where said resources are 
identified by name as subjects) but they are not of the Web medium e.g., 
You and I :-)

"Resource" conflation is the root of the problem and ensuing imbroglio.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen