W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 11:25:16 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010408112217.0329b290@mail.gorge.net>
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
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
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2001 14:24:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT