- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 19:47:37 -0500
- To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, presutti@cs.unibo.it
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 17:36 +0200, Aldo Gangemi wrote: > Hi Pat, David, Dan, > > I've processed this thread only yesterday, and I find it very > entertaining, we're talking of substantial stuff here ... > > In my opinion, the discussion would be easier if we could negotiate > our meaning by using ontologies, which are not only an infrastructure > for the Semantic Web :) Yes, that's what I tried to do in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/irw65/urisym > > The key notions here are: > > - resource > - information resource > - represents > - abstraction > > As far as I understand, the point by David and Frank (and TAG) is > that "information resources" are not data, Really? What has the TAG written that suggests that? > while "representations" > are. Information resources are some kind of things that are > "represented" by a representation, which is called to be an > "abstraction". [... more that I hope to respond to eventually ...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 00:47:49 UTC