- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 13:53:53 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
pat hayes wrote: > > OK, but then this really does not make sense, because the M&S also > says that 'Resource' includes off-webbish things like (real) books. > So taken quite literally, this would allow a Statement to be a triple > whose second element is, say, volume 1 of the 1815 edition of > Brittanica. (Not an URI of said book, but the actual book itself, > with leather covers, weighs around 3 lbs.) I'm not going to argue mathematics with you Pat. Long time passin', when I was first taught about sets, I was taught that a set could contain physical objects, i.e. the set of books on my bookshelf is a legitimate set. Was that wrong? Similarly, in the mathematical concept of a tuple, e.g. (x,y,z) can the components be physical objects, even though the tuple itself is an abstract thing? Brian
Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 08:57:32 UTC