W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: #rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about (every document is in the Web)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:57:10 -0500
Message-Id: <v04210116b758014f9a4e@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Brian McBride wrote:
> >
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > > You trust that I have a birthday even though you don't
> > > know it, right? By the same token, it seems easy
> > > enough to accept that resources have URIs even though
> > > those URIs aren't always specified.
> >
> > Forgive me butting in.  Is the set of real numbers
> > a subset of the set of resources?  After all, they have identity.
> > Note that URI's are countable and real numbers are not.
>That's the subtlety I meant to set aside when I wrote:
>| I think you've slightly overstated the case there,
>| but the argument holds even the way you've phrased it, so...
> -- Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:20:55 -0500
>The way he phrased it, every resource has a URI-name.
>The way I see it, any particular resource can be named
>with a URI; that doesn't mean they all have (unambiguous) names,
>as you point out: all real numbers are resources;
>only denumerably many of them can be named with URIs.
>Another subtlety that isn't relevant to the ID/about
>issue is whether 'resource' is used in the general
>sense of 'anything in the domain of discourse'
>(i.e. things you can refer to using absolute-URIs-with-fragments)

In general, there may be more things in the domain of discourse than 
one can name in the (any) language. Certainly there are if we start 
quantifying over sets, numbers, etc. .

>or in the stricter sense of, roughly, 'something you can
>get at via the network' (i.e. things you
>can refer to using absolute-URIs-without-fragments).
>I'd like for the revised RDF specs to use 'resource'
>in the stricter sense, but in speaking of real
>numbers as resources, of course we're using it
>in the general sense.

As far as I can tell, nobody outside the W3C uses it in this sense.

>The traditional logic-literature
>term for the more general concept is 'object'; I'd
>be happy to start using that in these WG discussions.

Actually even that has some 'physical' baggage. The most universally 
inclusive term is probably "entity".

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 15:57:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:49 UTC