- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:55 -0700
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Technical Architecture Group WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Susie Stephens" <susie.stephens@gmail.com>
I can imagine the parts calendar now. Dave > Uniform Rigid Identifier (since they are supposed to be like > proper names, 'attached to' their sole denotations in some > way; the philosophical term is 'rigid designator'; > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_designator). > Just a suggestion to save the acronym. > > And well, yes, RDF has to be what it is, but that's just a > matter of history :-) > > Pat > > >Dave > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On > >> Behalf Of Pat Hayes > >> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:55 PM > >> To: John Cowan; Tim Berners-Lee > >> Cc: Technical Architecture Group WG; Susie Stephens > >> Subject: Re: Preferable alternative to 'resource' > >> > >> > >> >>Tim Berners-Lee scripsit: > >> >> > >> >>> So, Pat, what would be a better word which we should use > >> instead? > >> >>> The class of all ____ s? The class of which all > classes are > >> >>> subclasses is the class of ____ s? > >> >> > >> >>Subjects, in accordance with the OED's definition 13a: > "That which > >> >>forms, or is chosen as, the matter of thought, > consideration, or > >> >>inquiry; a topic, theme." Using "subject" rather than > "object" or > >> >>"thing" allows us to talk about the imaginary as well as > the real. > >> > > >> >Yes, that does avoid a potential problem with "thing". And its > >> close >to, but not identical to, "topic". Just make sure to avoid > >> the >grammatical implication, is all. > >> > > >> > >> Though, on further reflection, this is going to give rise to > >> problems as well. The OED sense isn't found, for example, in > >> Wikipedia (not surprising if it is number 13a, now I think > of it), > >> though the RDF sense is (!); and the grammatical sense is > much more > >> common. > >> Philosophers will contrast 'subject' with 'object' and > presume we > >> are only talking about agents. Lawyers will presume we > are referring > >> to citizens as opposed to aliens. > >> Its hard to beat "thing" if we also say that we allow > imaginary and > >> non-existent things. And its harder still to beat "anything". > >> > >> Pat > >> > >> -- > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home > >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell > >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > >> > >> > >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > >
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 21:57:25 UTC