- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:30:24 -0600
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[no time for a more complete reply just now, but
in case I don't back to this for a while, I'll send this
much now...]
Aaron Swartz wrote:
>
> On 2001-12-06 11:14 PM, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
[...]
> > The RDF spec and the URI spec are orthogonal and don't form
> > this sort of conflict.
>
> The RDF claims it describes Resources, no?
it provides a framework for describing resources, yes.
> It calls itself a Resource
> Description Framework. The URI spec seems to go out of its way to say that
> URIs with fragmentIDs in them are _not_ Resources,
no, it says strings with #fragmentIDs are not URIs.
The defintion of resource that it gives isn't
limited in the way you suggest:
Resource
A resource can be anything that has identity. Familiar
examples include an electronic document, an image, a service
(e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a
collection of other resources. Not all resources are network
"retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound
books in a library can also be considered resources.
> yet RDF describes them.
> Perhaps we should rename RDF the Resource and Other Thing Framework for
> 'Laborating (ROTFL). ;-)
>
> To drive home this point, I quote from the URI RFC again:
>
> [[[
> [...] A URI reference may be absolute or relative,
> and may have additional information attached in the form of a
> fragment identifier. However, "the URI" that results from such a
> reference includes only the absolute URI after the fragment
> identifier (if any) is removed and after any relative URI is resolved
> to its absolute form.
> ]]]
That text makes a clear point about syntax, but not about any
relationship between absolute-URI-references and resources.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 14:30:29 UTC