I remember a heated discussion about this very issue.
Tim, if you do think there are things that cannot be resources
(in the URI sense of the word), I'd really like to know what
Dan Brickley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> In RDF, every class is a subclass of rdfs:Resource so surely that is just as
> informationless too.
> (I do wish RDF had used "thing" instead of "resource" which has a meaning in
> URI already).
So... are there identifiable 'things' that aren't 'resources'? (do you
mean the Literals?). The RDFS design on this pretty much followed from the RDF
Model claim that we inhabit the Web's world of URI-nameable resources...
Could you say something about what you'd count as a non-resource 'thing'?
(or is it a concern that we've coupled the RDF terms to concepts
defined, and argued about, elsewhere...?)