Re: rdfs:class and rdfs:resource

> "thing" is a word. All words are things, including the word "word" and the
> word "thing". If we can categorise something as being a "word" then we can
> also categorise it as being a "thing". Hence "word" is a subclass of
> "thing". Further, all words are subclasses of "thing".
>
> "thing" is analogous to <rdfs:Resource> and "word" to <rdfs:Class>.

What is sure is that to define rdfs:Class as an instance of rdfs:Resource
(that makes presume that the concept of "Resource" is earlier than that one
of "Class") and then assert that rdfs:Resource is of type rdfs:Class in
order to fix the concept of "Resource" is a little bit confusing and
circular.
This does not mean that it's a logical paradox.
But my question is: what resource was born first, rdfs:Resource or
rdfs:Class ?