Re: Can Resource be the top of our ontology ?

Seth Russell <> 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?"

[ Aaron Swartz | | ]

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 16:53:28 UTC