- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:28:20 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Public W3C <www-archive@w3.org>
On Saturday, Jul 26, 2003, at 12:12 US/Eastern, Dan Brickley wrote: > * Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> [2003-07-25 20:51-0400] >> >> >> The nearest cyc term is (from previous discussions) >> cyc:ConceptualWork. This something abstract, not concrete. >> >> The word "documents" has been used on this thread because it is >> shorter. > >> From previous discussion, am I right in saying you'd count > "The Bible", "Hamlet" etc as conceptual works; but foaf:Document (the > RDF class) or cyc:ConceptualWork (another RDF class) as not being > conceptual works. > > If so, what is it about the former that makes them more 'conceptual'? 1. I point you to a whole ontology - check the cyc classifications. 2. Nothing. They are all conceptual. Only things which convey information are works, in the sense of opus, oeuvre, something which decreases entropy and hence takes energy to create. > Are you claiming that RDF classes are purely mathematic constructs, > discovered rather than created? I make no untestable statements about whether they are discovered or created. But I do distinguish them from for example an RDF schema, which has content and can be represented in RDF/XML or N3, can be copyright, etc etc. > I ask because I have several RDF implementations which depend on > classes > being allowed in httpRange... Could you manage a transition to one in which you use a hash, please? It is going to be easier to fix it now than later. > Dan
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 11:28:20 UTC