- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:08:56 -0500
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, Susie Stephens <susie.stephens@gmail.com>
>Pat Hayes scripsit: > >> In addition, that final sentence really is ridiculous. "We call all >> these things resources." All WHAT things? It sounds rather as though >> you are saying 'We call everything resources.' If that really is what >> you mean, I suggest it would be extremely helpful if you would >> actually say this, directly. (If it sounds ridiculous; well, I rest >> my case.) I would note that there are already many humble words that >> can be used for this purpose, such as 'thing' and 'entity'. > >In the Topic Maps tradition, the equivalent term is "subject" (topic >maps are a generalization of the subject indexes at the back of books), >and it is defined thus: > > A subject is anything that can be spoken about or conceived > of by a human being. In the most generic sense, a subject is > anything whatsoever, regardless of whether it exists or has any > other specific characteristics, about which anything whatsoever > may be asserted by any means whatsoever. In particular, it is > anything on which the author of a topic map chooses to discourse. > >I think that, with the parochialisms removed, that sentence does very >well as the definition of "resource" as well. My point was that to invent new technical terms for this idea, so that one is obliged to give such ridiculous non-definitions, is poor science and poor philosophy, and generally misleading in an expository text. I want the TAG to use English rather than a fake pseudo-technical terminology which in fact does not add any new meanings to the world's stock of concepts. (I'd like the Topic Maps community to do the same, but feel less strongly about them.) And I'm sorry, but the above is not a definition: it is an explanation of why no definition is possible. A definition of something distinguishes it from things it is not. In this case there is nothing it is not. The correct English word to use here is not "resource" or "subject" - both of which already have particular meanings, which are here being explicitly denied - but 'entity' or 'thing'. But in fact, neither of these is quite right either, since unicorns are not things. (At best they might be said to be 'possible things', aka possibilia.) What is really being said by such a "definition" is not that the referent can be anything, since in some cases, according to many philosophical analyses, there is no actual being referent at all (as in the unicorn case). Rather, what these definitions are struggling to say is that the name is being used without any regard for its referent. It may have one or not: the 'resource' or 'subject' may exist (and may be anything) or not. All this referential talk is therefore immaterial to the usage of the name which is being said to refer (or "identify"). At best, what one could say is that the referent is assumed to be something in some possible world, but even this is philosophically very debatable (see for example http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism/ for some of the issues that arise.) Pat > >-- >Newbies always ask: John Cowan > "Elements or attributes? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan >Which will serve me best?" cowan@ccil.org > Those who know roar like lions; > Wise hackers smile like tigers. >--a tanka, or extended haiku -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:09:12 UTC