Seairth Jacobs scripsit: > The Resource seems to me just a convenience for the server > implementer, since the client can't know any more about than what it knows > of URIs and Representations. That model works well when you are just fetching representations for human or machine consumption. When you want to make *assertions*, though, you have a problem. Consider http://www.heritage.org/images/shakespeare.jpg . Now does that refer to *Shakespeare*, the playwright who was born on or about 1564-04-23? Or does it refer to a *picture of Shakespeare*, which is in JPEG format and contains 176 by 190 pixels? And if it refers to one of them, how does one refer to the other? It matters, because the assertions you can make about Shakespeare are basically totally dissimilar to those you can make about a picture of Shakespeare. The picture has a (human) creator; Shakespeare doesn't. The electronic picture was made in the 20th or 21st century; Shakespeare was a 16th-17th century kind of event. Shakespeare wrote in English; Shakespeare's picture doesn't write at all. And so on. "The map is not the territory." Topic maps, for all their messiness, at least get this right: for each assertion, you can tell whether it's about Shakespeare (a "non-addressable resource") or about the JPEG of Shakespeare (an "addressable resource"). Topic maps talk about addressable resources using their URIs and a resourceRef element, and about non-addressable resources using some suitable URI and a subjectIndicatorRef element. No chance of confusion. RDF people could do this too, by only referring to addressable resources with URIs, and using anonymous nodes for non-addressable resources (with predications linking them to suitable subject-indicating URIs). Unfortunately, the ideology of RDF doesn't work like that, although technically it's feasible. TimBL, e.g., is on record as saying that the URI "http://www.w3.org/Consortium" *is* the W3C for RDF purposes, which leaves no URI for the text that describes the W3C. Annoying little note: yes, I realize what I'm doing; no, it's not a mistake. -- John Cowan jcowan@r... http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Most languages are dramatically underdescribed, and at least one is dramatically overdescribed. Still other languages are simultaneously overdescribed and underdescribed. Welsh pertains to the third category. --Alan King
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format