> "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 ?Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 15:59:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:42 UTC