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

RE: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:29:59 -0700
To: "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LHEGJAOEDCOFFBGFAPKBAEJACEAA.chas@munat.com>

Frank V. Castellucci wrote:
"In addition, it is an anachronism for implementation not
conceptualization. In conceptualization it is implicit."

Can you repeat that in English?

Charles F. Munat
Seattle, Washington

Received on Sunday, 8 April 2001 19:32:11 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: William Loughborough: "RE: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?"
Previous message: Frank V. Castellucci: "Re: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?"
In reply to: Frank V. Castellucci: "Re: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?"
Next in thread: William Loughborough: "RE: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

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