- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:16:52 -0700
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Bill de hOra" <dehora@eircom.net>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> If as Fielding says, URIs are the words of the web, then > we should understand that as the linguists say, words > have no meaning. URIs *are* the words of the web. However, I would recommend TAG avoid endorsing any particular point of view regarding semiotics as well. The relevance is debatable, and the particular point of view you express is still controversial. P.S. In fact, this idea is not really even supported by the originator of Semiotics theory himself, Umberto Eco. The idea that "words have no meaning" was associated with Eco's earlier text which coined "semiotics", where he said, "I think that the narrator should never provide interpretation of his own work. Text is a machine conceived for eliciting interpretation. When one has the text in question it is irrelevant to ask the author". However, Eco has many times since clarified, and at a speech to Columbia University in 1996, he stated "I was starting the dialectic between the right of the texts and the right of their interpreters. I have the impression that in the course of the last decades the right of the interpreters has been overstressed".
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 17:17:29 UTC