Why does it matter? Why can't an URI, an URI string, or an URIRef (or an URI whatevers [!]) mean whatever the minter says they mean? If I put a document containg a description about Bob at his URI, that doesn't mean the URI is an information resource for that document; it could be for convience for instance.

I think the context defines whether the resource is dereferencable or not. When defining URIRefs in RDF, they should never dereferenced - all that matters is the relationship betweeen names. However, when using URI strings in an HTML document's anchors it is important that EVERY one is dereferencable (otherwise I get broken links). It is up to the context to specify if they can be deferenced or not. After all, are there any specs that specify different behavior for indistinguishable URI strings that are dereferenceable or abstract?

P.S. The definition of "Information Resource" stinks. It allows postal mail to be considered an "Information Resource" (and if that's allowed, then the example of paper documents not being IRs is wrong since they can be mailed).

I think this is a reasonable compromise. I'd rather that HTTP URIs only referenced things you can get with HTTP but given the widespread existing usage it would be a Canute-like action to rule otherwise.

Is there a formal write-up anywhere, yet? The TAG issues document doesn't seem to reference one but maybe that's coming.

Do the same rules apply to HTTP URIs with fragment identifiers? I.e., is it that if you can GET the document and it is of a type for which fragment identifiers make sense and the document contains a fragment with that ID then it references that fragment, otherwise you don't know what it references?

To people not deeply immersed in the RDF world view, it seems very peculiar that an HTTP URL might deliberately not refer to an electronic document whose representation is downloadable using HTTP.

I quite like the conventions used in ISO topic maps, where they distinguish between using a URI to identify a resource (electronic document), and using a URI to identify a subject (= concept, topic). Subject indicators might or might not be derefenceable. For example, I can use http://topicmaps.org/1.0/languages.xtm#en as a subject indicator for the English language, without raising the question of whether one can download the English language by feeding this resource in to a web browser. Obviously RDF does the same, but topic maps make the distinction explicit.

I personally am convinced the resource http://www.alleged.org.uk/pdc/ is not me and I am not http://www.alleged.org.uk/pdc/, but I would more relaxed about being identified by the subject indicator http://www.alleged.org.uk/pdc/. But then maybe I am strange: I also object to our office convention of giving one's computer the same name as oneself.

Never mind... I guess that's what 303 is for. I still don't like it, but I guess that's why it is a compromise.

Bit of a rabbit out of the hat this. I didn't expect a resolution to httpRange-14 in this lifetime, yet it does seem a reasonable compromise. I assume a Note or somesuch will follow. I'm curious about the implications for namespaces, especially those for schemas - are they information resources or other-things? (I'd guess 303 to the schema doc).

The Topic Maps point is an interesting one, though I think I'd describe the RDF case the other way around: RDF in itself doesn't really understand HTTP so the notion of (non-)dereferenceability is orthogonal. But then again, maybe this resolution can bring RDF & HTTP closer (along the lines of URIQA)?

This page looks really bad as a pdf document.

I don't think this compromise helps much. My objection is that Cars are Information Resources and Documents are Objects Too. From that post: "The boundry between matter and information is fuzzy and indistinct. DNA is information but it is a molecule as well. Ink is a chemical liquid that dries on paper but can also be text. In the end, I think it will turn out the distiction between object-documents like those about cars and document-objects like the Declaration of Independence or the Mona Lisa will turn out to be personal and context dependent. The real distinction is between those things that now have an HTTP interface, and those that do not yet have one."

I've improved the PDF. It still has a couple of badly filled paragraphs, but nothing as awful as that list was. Thanks, Jimmy!