RE: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

<- Absolutely! Things with no identity are not nothing, they are simply
<- unidentifiable within the bounds of a computer system. With the
<- development
<- of new identification schemes, things may move from
<- Non-Addressable Subject
<- to Resource over time.

I'm curious - what is the purpose of non-addressable subjects in a computer
system?
i.e. what can you actually do with things you can't identify?
(apart from sling 'em on the pile in the corner  ;-)

examples would be nice