- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:33:45 +0600
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
let me rephrase that - the resource isn't a thing (entity) at all, it's a mapping to a thing. A model is a mapping to a system. But if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, who cares? --- Danny Ayers http://www.isacat.net <- -----Original Message----- <- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org <- [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Seth Russell <- Sent: 09 April 2001 00:08 <- To: RDF-IG <- Subject: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ? <- <- <- Here, AFIK, thanks to Aaron Swartz's scholarship, <- is the ~official~ definition of "Resource". <- <- <q cite="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt"> <- Resource <- A resource can be anything that has identity. Familiar <- examples include an electronic document, an image, a service <- (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a <- collection of other resources. Not all resources are network <- "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound <- books in a library can also be considered resources. <- <- The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of <- entities, not necessarily the entity which corresponds to that <- mapping at any particular instance in time. Thus, a resource <- can remain constant even when its content---the entities to <- which it currently corresponds---changes over time, provided <- that the conceptual mapping is not changed in the process. <- </q> <- <- But I would like to observe that Resources as defined above do <- not function <- nicely as the only valid top of our ontology; whereas Thing(s) <- do. Here are <- my reasons: <- <- 1) The definition itself implies that there are things which can have no <- identity by saying: "A resource can be anything that has <- identity". So what <- happens when we must talk of things with no identity? Are these <- things to <- have no ontological status? Can I not describe a dust mite that <- was present <- in the room in which I was born; or would I have to name the <- bugger first? <- <- 2) We desperately need a way to distinguish between a thing and its model <- inside a system. We need to make the age old distinction between a <- territory and it's map. I don't see how to do this using the <- definition of <- Resource above. An entire RDF node (all triples with the same subject) <- function to model or represents something ... yet it obviously is not the <- thing it models and represents. We need a way to distinguish between the <- thing itself and the RDF node which represents it within our computer <- networks. The definition above seems to provide no way to make that <- distinction; since everything it recognizes in it's ontology is <- a Resource. <- <- What am I missing ? <- <- But on the other hand if we use Thing as the top of our ontology <- we can say <- that Resources are either things like electronic documents or RDF <- descriptions indside the computer network ... something like ... <- <- language: Semenglish <- Thing <- description "The top of our ontology"; <- scope "Nothing is excluded. Things even include those things that <- represent other things". <- Resource <- subClass Thing; <- containedIn (a computer network). <- RDFdescription <- subClass Resource; <- comment "A set of RDF statements with the same subject"; <- seeAlso "RDF node", Symbol; <- represent [a Thing]; <- model [ a Thing]; <- (can be identified by) URI. <- ElectronicDocuments <- subClass Resource; <- (can be identified by) URI. <- <- Seth <- (wants to discuss) Pentuples; <- (wants to collaborate on) SEM. <- Pentuples <- see http://robustai.net/mentography/pentuples.gif ; <- comment "Are not meant as a replacement or extension of RDF"; <- comment "Pentuples are a proposal for an internal data structure"; <- (internal data structure of) SEM. <- SEM <- label "Semantic Memory". <- <- <-
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2001 14:36:57 UTC