Re: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

From: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>

> let me rephrase that - the resource isn't a thing (entity) at all, it's a
> mapping to a thing.

So a mapping is not a thing?   I think "entity" and "thing" are synonyms ..
i am happy with either; but whichever we choose it cannot exclude anything
that we can possibly think about.  The concept of Resource is too
restrictive, and that is my trouble with it.

>Think you're off the mark though - without a name, anonymous, ok. But
things
>without an identity, no-things?

Well I think we're agreeing here, arn't we?  Just because it doesn't have an
identity, doesnt mean it is nothing. Nor do I think the RDF spec calims that
it would.   A problem would only arise if we were to use the RFC2396
definition of Resource and also use it as the definiton of  the top of our
ontology;  and then insist that every other class be a subClass of it.  Hmmm
... I wonder .. is anybody actually doing that?

I didnt see this on the RDF tracking page.

Seth

Received on Sunday, 8 April 2001 15:14:28 UTC