Nathan, hello. On 2011 Oct 20, at 12:54, Nathan wrote:
> Norman Gray wrote: >> Ugh: 'IR' and 'NIR' are ugly obscurantist terms (though reasonable in their >> original context). Wouldn't 'Bytes' and 'Thing', respectively, be better >> (says he, plaintively)? > > Both are misleading, since NIR is the set of all things, and IR is a > proper subset of NIR, it doesn't make much sense to label it "non > information resource(s)" when it does indeed contain information > resources. From that perspective "IR" and "R" makes somewhat more sense. That's true, and clarifying. Or, more formally, R is the set of all resources (?equivalent to "things named by a URI"). IR is a subset of that, defined as all the things which return 200 when you dereference them. NIR is then just R \ IR. It's NIR that's of interest to this discussion, but there's no way of indicating within HTTP that a resource is in that set [1], only that something is in IR. Back to your regularly scheduled argumentation... Norman [1] Though there is, implicitly, within any RDF that one might subsequently receive -- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
