Re: namespace usage as assertions

Dan wondered why he has to explain resources so many times. Perhaps this
exchange is informative:
 
> From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
  
> "Manola,Frank A." wrote:

> > To wit:  isn't it the case at the moment that, since the URIs that
> > identify namespaces may actually point to nothing,
> 
> That's not the case. Every URI, by definition, identifies/points to a
> resource.
...
> In particular, if the user chose a namespace name beginning
> with http:, you can infer that a description of/representation of
> the resource identified by that URI is generally available on demand.

Here, when Mr Manola uses "actually" I read it as meaning "ultimately". 
But Dan takes it as meaning "proximately".

In typical computer languages, we are used to a left-hand side and a
right-hand-side of an assigment or equation operator. There is a name on
the left, and an evaluatable value on the right (unless you are using
BLISS). If URIs could be explained in terms where "resource" does not
seem to sometimes be used for the LHS (the identifier?) sometimes for
the LHS (the entity?) and sometimes for the = (retrieval semantics?
referencing semantics?)  I am sure many people would find it helpful. 

The thing I find difficult is that "resource" seems to mean "anything
that has a URI" but that the property of having a name, and the essense
of having being because of having a name is pretty tenuous. It is too
thin a definition not to be confusing: indeed it seems almost vapid. If
the only property that brings a resource into being is having a name,
then why make the distinction between (absolute) names and resources?

Rick Jelliffe

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2000 14:47:23 UTC