RE: resources, stuffs and individuation

> For me I divide the world up like this:
> 
> There are things. Everthing is a 'thing'. There are no exceptions.
Even
> 'nothing' is a thing.
> 
> There are 'Resources'. 'Resources' are 'things' that have had a URI
> bound to them.

Yes, that's what I thought you meant.  I *think* that Pat raised one
other "category of things" that needs to be accounted for, but I don't
see why it has to cause disagreement.

> Use of the term 'resource' any where else is either deprecated or
> meaningless. If it is used then, unless stated explicitly, you are
_not_
> using the definition found in the previous two sentences and as far as
> I'm concerned you're talking gibberish. If that's provocative then
maybe
> we should pick a different word?

Exactly!  As far as I can tell, it is only the differing choice of words
that makes everyone appear to be disagreeing.  As long as the words
chosen are clearly defined, I see no point in getting hung up over
*which* word is used.

We divide the world up like this:

A. There are things.  Everything is a "thing".  There are no exceptions
B. There are things which *might* have a URI bound to them.
C. There are things which *do* have a URI bound to them.

Is B the same thing as A?  *That* question is irrelevant and not worth
arguing about IMO.  It seems like the only *legitimate* confusion is
around the names for A/B and C.

I personally have always thought that:
A="thing", B="resource", and C="resource with a URI".

You (MM) are saying that:
A="thing", B="thing", C="Resource"

I personally have no problem accepting your naming for "C", so long as
it is very clear that this is different than A or B.  I would also
(personally) suggest that terminology be kept clear by using:

A="thing", B="thing which hasn't been bound to a URI", C="Resource".

Does anyone else disagree?