Re: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

At 11:07 AM 4/8/01 -0700, Seth Russell wrote:
>I don't see how to do this using the definition of Resource above

Nor do I. The territory/map thing isn't all because electrons are "things" 
and their "parts" (quarks, etc.?) are only considered resources by absurdists.

The definition in the referred-to document is (how can I put this kindly?) 
naive.

All resources are things, not all things are necessarily resources.

Of course ontology trees keep growing - probably faster than a ring a year?

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE