- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:02:17 +0000
- To: Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Yeah, I have heard this argument before. Soon as you give me an assayable and testable definition for reality, I'm right with you. Phil Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu> writes: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Phillip Lord > <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote: >> This is a broken definition of "good" to my mind. It suggests that we >> should make all the distinctions that we can make, all the time. >> Unfortunately, this means that everyone bears the cost of the complexity >> all the time also. > True but the other option is the current situation where we all bear > the complexity of not knowing what we someone is really talking about. > Leading to merging of information that should never have been merged > and conclusions that are not worth the pixels they are displayed on. > Sure there is a cost to ever more complex representations of > information to match reality and this is not what I am advocating. I > am advocating give reality a different IRI than the model.
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 14:02:44 UTC