RE: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

Danny Ayers wrote:
> <- 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
>

Consider the XTM / XTM Specification. XTM is a non-addressable subject, the
XTM Specification is an addressable resource. Using these two topics, I
could create an association (say, "specified by") between XTM and the XTM
Spec. I could then use XTM as the central topic for a bunch of other
associations (e.g. of types "tutorial on", "application uses") etc. In other
words, I am making a set of assertions about XTM, without requiring the
subject to be addressable.

Cheers,

Kal