- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:52:58 -0500
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net> wrote: > 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 We don't need anything at the top of our ontology. As TimBL said: you can't have something that's the root of all knowledge. Thing may be at the top of your ontology, but Thwablog is at the top of mine. ;-) > 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? Well, unless you can identify something, I don't think you'll be able to talk about it on the Semantic Web. Unless I'm missing it's hard to talk about something that's not identified... "Yeah, it's purple." "What is?" "It!" -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 16:53:28 UTC