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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:04:43 +0600
To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFAEMIDBAA.danny@panlanka.net>

<- > 1) The definition itself implies that there are things which
<- can have no
<- > identity by saying: "A resource can be anything that has
<- identity".  So what
<- > happens when we must talk of things with no identity?  Are
<- these things to
<- > have no ontological status?  Can I not describe a dust mite
<- that was present
<- > in the room in which I was born; or would I have to name the
<- bugger first?
<-
<- Well, unless you can identify something, I don't think you'll be able to
<- talk about it on the Semantic Web. Unless I'm missing it's hard to talk
<- about something that's not identified...
<-
<- "Yeah, it's purple."
<-     "What is?"
<- "It!"
<-

I think what the topic map enthusiast was talking about (where's that thread
gone? - I've forgotten where it was) was that you could give "It" a label,
without knowing really what "It" was. So when you got more information and
your hay fever started you could make use of the original information and
stamp on all things purple.
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 02:10:20 GMT

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