- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:48:34 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>It occured to me the other day that the choice >of "concrete" for integers, strings, and the >like vs. "abstract" for stuff you might want >to model like people, places, and things >is sort of ironic: what's concrete >about an integer? What's abstract about a shoe? Yes, this terminology is seriously warped. It would be better to call them 'reserved' or 'ancillary' or 'implemented' or some such locution, rather than anything which suggests a position in an abstraction or class heirarchy. After all, the whole point is that they aren't going to be *anywhere* in the class heirarchy, right? >It's kinda like the X windows system wherein, >counterintuitively, the wimpy little box you >sit at is the server and the million dollar >supercomputer over there is the client. Well, now, if you ever had an evening job as a waiter you would realize that this actually makes a lot of sense. Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 00:45:42 UTC