RE: resources, stuffs and individuation

> > What is wrong with saying:
> >
> >    A resource can be anything that can be named.

>  - could in principle be assigned a name
> ... gets us back into resources are just things territory,

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant to say.  Isn't that what everyone else
is saying?  Does it eliminate the ambiguity to say:

"A resource is anything that can be assigned a name for purposes of
identification"

This seems to address Pat's concerns -- some things are, indeed,
unnamable.  Those things are not "resources"; everything else is.

>   - could be mentioned by name (because it has one)
> the latter view, roughly the "to be is to be
> the value of a uri" view of 2396 resources, is one

Wow, I am surprised that anyone would want to stipulate that something
must already have a URI assigned to qualify as a "resource".  What
possible use could there be in trying to argue about *that*?