[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > doesn't bother me, but if people get so sidetracked than maybe it's
the
> > fault of imprecise language.
>
> Yes this is precisely the problem, when we talk about the RDF
framework
> (let's get explicit here) we are facing two cases:
> a) RDF is used to add some meta-data to some existing data (also
called a
> resource). The data may not necessarily be accessible thought an HTTP
GET
It's even worse than this. I don't think anyone *ever* uses RDF to "add
meta-data to some existing data (also called a resource)". It just
can't work this way. The data and the resource are separate, and you
*always* talk about the resource in RDF, and *not* about the data.
They really are completely separate.
The result of doing an HTTP GET is emphatically *not* "the resource".
If anything, the result of doing an HTTP GET is some data *about* the
resource. It is a representation of the resource; just like a painting
or photograph could be a representation of you. (This is the whole
point of the REST religion, BTW).
So the "data" that you get from an HTTP GET is not really conceptually
different from the other "metadata about a URL" that we might talk
about. If you wrote it in triples, you could conceptualize that:
s: http://www.netcrucible.com/blog
p: dc:Author
o: allenjs@hotmail.com
s: http://www.netcrucible.com/blog
p: ns:representation
o: <html><head><title>Better L....
Note that you might even want to use different representation predicates
for different user agents, and so on. Obviously in practice nobody
shares resource representations this way, since we have HTTP and it
works fine. But the point is that *architecturally* and *conceptually*,
the result of HTTP GET is just as much "about" the resource as any other
RDF statement.
|
