- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:54:42 -0500
- To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, Susie Stephens <susie.stephens@gmail.com>
>>Tim Berners-Lee scripsit: >> >>> So, Pat, what would be a better word which we should use instead? >>> The class of all ____ s? The class of which all classes are >>> subclasses is the class of ____ s? >> >>Subjects, in accordance with the OED's definition 13a: "That which forms, >>or is chosen as, the matter of thought, consideration, or inquiry; a >>topic, theme." Using "subject" rather than "object" or "thing" allows >>us to talk about the imaginary as well as the real. > >Yes, that does avoid a potential problem with >"thing". And its close to, but not identical to, >"topic". Just make sure to avoid the grammatical >implication, is all. > Though, on further reflection, this is going to give rise to problems as well. The OED sense isn't found, for example, in Wikipedia (not surprising if it is number 13a, now I think of it), though the RDF sense is (!); and the grammatical sense is much more common. Philosophers will contrast 'subject' with 'object' and presume we are only talking about agents. Lawyers will presume we are referring to citizens as opposed to aliens. Its hard to beat "thing" if we also say that we allow imaginary and non-existent things. And its harder still to beat "anything". Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 27 September 2007 20:55:20 UTC