W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

RE: What do the ontologists want

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:39:20 -0500
Message-Id: <v0421012db72b29f9d43c@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>At 09:31 PM 5/17/01 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>>>in RDF:
>>>3: a statement is not a predicate.
>>>4: a statement is not a resource.
>>? I thought a resource could be anything (?) I am still trying to 
>>find out what 'resource' means, but Dan Connolly tells me that:
>>the standard [definition of resource] is RFC2396:
>>     Resource
>>        A resource can be anything that has identity.
>>        [...]
>>which seems to cover just about anything in the universe, certainly 
>>including RDF statements.
>But if a statement does not have an identity?

How can anything not have an identity? Everything has an identity. 
(?? Maybe 'having an identity' means something special here that I am 
not following? I take it that to have an identity means to be equal 
to oneself, ie to exist.)

>Dan's/Mel99 model theory had:
>   N: the set of resources
>   S: the set of statements, a subset of (NxNxN)
>>>6: a resource clearly doesn't need to be reified to have a statement
>>>made about it.
>>Not obvious to me at present.
>What does it mean to reify a _resource_?

I'm not the person to ask: I still do not have any clear idea what 
"resource" means, and am trying to find out. Actually what would be 
more use would be to see some examples of non-resources.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 15:39:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC