Re: An ontology of resources and realization [was: RE: on documents and terms [was: RE: [WNET] new proposal WN URIs and related issues]]

Scrive Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>:

> On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 17:36 +0200, Aldo Gangemi wrote:
> > Hi Pat, David, Dan,
> >
> > I've processed this thread only yesterday, and I find it very
> > entertaining, we're talking of substantial stuff here ...
> >
> > In my opinion, the discussion would be easier if we could negotiate
> > our meaning by using ontologies, which are not only an infrastructure
> > for the Semantic Web :)
>
> Yes, that's what I tried to do in
>  http://www.w3.org/2006/04/irw65/urisym

Good, I'll look at it right asap.

>
> >
> > The key notions here are:
> >
> > - resource
> > - information resource
> > - represents
> > - abstraction
> >
> > As far as I understand, the point by David and Frank (and TAG) is
> > that "information resources" are not data,
>
> Really? What has the TAG written that suggests that?
>

Uh, I've processed the thread very quickly, and possibly misunderstood David's
and Frank's arguments as faithful commentaries to TAG. We'll go checking the
sources.

Aldo