- From: <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:56:39 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, presutti@cs.unibo.it
Scrive Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>: > 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 Good, I'll look at it right asap. > > > > > 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? > Uh, I've processed the thread very quickly, and possibly misunderstood David's and Frank's arguments as faithful commentaries to TAG. We'll go checking the sources. Aldo
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:56:47 UTC