- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:41:25 -0800
- To: <fmanola@mitre.org>, "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>
- Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <003201c29195$fac1e180$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
"existent" comes from the field of philosophy, and is widely used in discussions of metaphysics (what exists?) and epistemology (how do I know?). Epistemology is also known as "the theory of knowledge", and is concerned with the methods of concept-formation and validating the truth of statements about reality. I have no problem with using the name "resource". I was only expressing my opinion that it seemed like a strange choice. After hearing the responses from members of RDF-interest concerning the origin & context of the word, I understand the choice. ============ Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done knowledge haspart list of proposition ----- Original Message ----- From: Frank Manola To: Jon Hanna Cc: RDF-Interest Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:27 AM Subject: Re: "Resource" (RDF vocabulary definitions) Jon Hanna wrote: > > > I understand what you're saying. > > But the intent seems to be to represent all existents on the web. > > In that case, "Resource" and "existent" are absolutely identical. > > So why use two different words when they have exactly the same > > meaning? I agree. Can we all agree to eliminate the use of "existent" (where did that word come from, and who uses it?) and use "resource" instead? Also, if you don't like "resource", you might get more bang for your argument taking it to the authors of RFC 2396 (see, e.g., http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt) or to uri@w3.org. This isn't an RDF-specific usage, after all. --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 14:41:26 UTC