• To: <martind@n...>,"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>,"Michael Champion" <mc@x...>,"XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:16:53 -0700
• Thread-index: AcROHe/LZ+pXWZKURDSM9pow5X8DVgAGi29wAAELSAA=
• Thread-topic: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)

> > Can we say that if the "about" attribute in an rdf:description
refers
> > resource we can get, see with a viewer (for instance a web browser)
or
> > process with a gizmo, that we are talking of meta-data. If not, we
are
> > probably talking about data.
> 
> No, absolutely not!!  This is an understandable error, but please do
not
> propagate it.  A resource is a resource is a resource.  Doesn't matter
> whether you can get it or not.

BTW, this principle that a resource need not be GETable is not confined
to "semantic web", and is in fact one of the defining features of WWW.

I can link to a page even if that page is not currently available; even
if the author has blocked access from my domain; even if the destination
domain is temporarily or permanently unavailable.  Some links do not
have a presumption of GET at all.

• Prev by Date: RE: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
• Next by Date: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic webmega-permathread thing)
• Previous by thread: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic webmega-permathread thing)
• Next by thread: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread