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

RE: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:45:00 +0600
To: <kal@ontopia.net>, "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFOEFPDBAA.danny@panlanka.net>
Ok, so something can be identified without being addressable - fair enough
;-)


---
Danny Ayers
http://www.isacat.net

<- -----Original Message-----
<- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
<- [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Kal Ahmed
<- Sent: 10 April 2001 14:56
<- To: Danny Ayers; Seth Russell; RDF-IG
<- Subject: RE: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?
<-
<-
<- Danny Ayers wrote:
<- > But surely by talking of XTM, you are identifying it? When you make the
<- > assertions about it, you want the assertions to 'stick' to XTM,
<- > so in effect
<- > you are associating the assertions with an identifier. If you want to
<- > examine those assertions about XTM you need to have some space you can
<- > address as 'XTM' to retrieve the assertions...surely?
<- >
<- It is true that I am identifying XTM by talking about it - if
<- nothing else,
<- I am identifying it by name. Hopefully I am identifying it
<- unambiguosly so
<- that any reader would understand what this XTM 'thing' really
<- is. In fact,
<- XTM allows me to provide a number of addressable resources which describe
<- the XTM concept for just that purpose.
<-
<- However, what I am not doing is defining a location for XTM. The
<- concept of
<- XTM is not addressable. Just like the concept of a major brand
<- such as Nike
<- is not addressable. There may be lots of things which describe
<- this concept
<- (the XTM Spec, the Nike website) but these resources are not the concept,
<- merely some description or representation of it.
<-
<- Of course, the <topic> element I create in my topic map for the concept
<- 'XTM' is a resource. But it is only a proxy for the XTM concept.
<- The element
<- can be addressed, but it can only describe the concept, it
<- cannot *be* XTM.
<-
<- Being able to clearly distinguish between when a resource *is*
<- the subject
<- under discussion and when a resource *describes* the subject under
<- discussion is crucial not only for human understanding but also for
<- automated processing and having a distinction between the two (both
<- conceptually and syntactically) is a nice feature of XTM.
<-
<- Cheers,
<-
<- Kal
<-
<- > ---
<- > Danny Ayers
<- > http://www.isacat.net
<- >
<- > <- -----Original Message-----
<- > <- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
<- > <- [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Kal Ahmed
<- > <- Sent: 10 April 2001 02:04
<- > <- To: Danny Ayers; Seth Russell; RDF-IG
<- > <- Subject: 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
<- > <-
<- >
<- >
<- >
<-
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 09:48:30 GMT

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