RE: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

Seth Russel wrote:
> From: "Danny Ayers" <>
> > 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.

The XTM (XML Topic Maps [1]) conceptual model starts out with a base class
of Subject - a subject is anything about which an assertion can be made
(which I guess equates to "thing"). However, a Subject in the XTM-CM has two
subclasses: Resource (a Subject which has identity within the bounds of a
computer system) and Non-Addressable Subject (anything else). XTM allows a
Non-Addressable Subject to be identified by a collection of Resource objects
which describe the Non-Addressable Subject. This is pretty powerful!

E.g. "XML Topic Maps" is a Non-Addressable Subject (it has to be - it is a
concept). However, the Subject "XML Topic Maps" is described by the Resource On the other hand, the XTM 1.0
Specification (HTML format) is a Resource with the address

> >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.

Absolutely! Things with no identity are not nothing, they are simply
unidentifiable within the bounds of a computer system. With the development
of new identification schemes, things may move from Non-Addressable Subject
to Resource over time.




Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 08:40:50 UTC