- From: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:47:51 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Luc, On 25/05/2011 08:45, Luc Moreau wrote: > > If this is the reading, then I think we should aim to be clearer in our > own definition. That's partially the reason I raised the question last night. I am not convinced that the phrase "identified by URIs" is giving anything meaningful to the definition of Resource. It just appears to add some unnecessary constraints. What do we lose if we refer to a resource as "something that can be identified"? And what do we lose if we do not say that a resource is "anything that has provenance"? I am writing while thinking aloud... -- Jun > > Luc > > On 05/25/2011 07:40 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> Luc Moreau wrote: >>> Hi Graham >>> I am coming back to an earlier comment of yours, see below. >> >> [...] >> >>> To clarify a point here. Are you saying that a resource could be >>> anonymous (I.e, non identified)? But by the very fact we could have >>> given it a URI, it is indeed a resource as per this definition. >> >> Yes, exactly that! (I prefer "non-identified" to "anonymous".) >> >> That's how I read and understand the AWWW/RFC3986 definitions. >> >> #g >> -- >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 10:48:14 UTC