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

Re: completion of action: 2001-07-27#2 (long)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 13:53:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3B937D61.A4419A48@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

pat hayes wrote:

> OK, but then this really does not make sense, because the M&S also
> says that 'Resource' includes off-webbish things like (real) books.
> So taken quite literally, this would allow a Statement to be a triple
> whose second element is, say, volume 1 of the 1815 edition of
> Brittanica. (Not an URI of said book, but the actual book itself,
> with leather covers, weighs around 3 lbs.)

I'm not going to argue mathematics with you Pat.  Long time passin',
when I was first taught about sets, I was taught that a set could
contain physical objects, i.e. the set of books on my bookshelf is a
legitimate set.  Was that wrong?

Similarly, in the mathematical concept of a tuple, e.g. (x,y,z) can
the components be physical objects, even though the tuple itself is
an abstract thing?

Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 08:57:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:51 UTC