W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2001

Re: Signation

From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:48:05 -0500
Message-ID: <3A7325F5.B2726CD5@oakland.edu>
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, Matthew West <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
CC: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>, SemioCom <semiocom@listbot.com>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>

Seth Russell wrote:
> Jon Awbrey wrote:
> > |  "Matthew"  is a sign that denotes Matthew   (in the real world).
> > |  "x"        is a sign that denotes x         (in the real world).
> > |  "<x, y>"   is a sign that denotes <x, y>    (in the real world).
> > |  "R"        is a sign that denotes {<x, y> : <x, y> in R} (ITRW).
> > | '"Matthew"' is a sign that denotes "Matthew" (in the real world).
> > | '"x"'       is a sign that denotes "x"       (in the real world).
> > | '"<x, y>"'  is a sign that denotes "<x, y>"  (in the real world).
> > | '"R"'       is a sign that denotes "R"       (in the real world).   <<<---<<<
> So can you provide a dereferencible URI to ITRW,
> and will you assert (in the real world) that it
> is the official URI ?
> <swag:signature
>     language="N3"
>     context="swag:ThisEmail"
>     tallingIn="http://swag.semanticweb.org/termsplayground/#"
>     intent=":FYI">
> :Seth
>    :properName "Seth Russell";
>    :mbox "mailto:seth@robustai.net";
>    :workingOn <http://RobustAI.net/MyNetwork/index.html>;
>    :workingOn <http://robustAI.net/MyNetwork/StickeyCyberMolecules.html>;
>    :wrote <http://robustai.net/ai/symknow.htm>;
>    :conjectures <http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm>;
>    :affiliatedWith <http://purl.org/swag/>;
>    :affiliatedWith <http://speaktomecatalog.com>;
>    :lookingFor [Who:Person#x :willProgram :Sembrowser].
> </swag:signature>
> [:Seth :notes "the syntax error encountered when using
>  the N3 "<...>" construct when embedded in XML."]


| A Question!?
| Since before your sun ...
| [atmospheric, html, static, unreadable] ...
| I have waited for a Question!?

Now, Seth, you know perfectly well, before you even speak,
that any brands of tokens of signs, that I might arrange
to be transmitted from my keyboard and on to your screen,
could never be more than ever-more interrupretive tokens
of "yet another sign, yet another text" (YASYAT), & even
if I were to e-range them to be so "blue of face" (BOF)
that you could e-mediately clique on them, then all you
would view as the upshot of that co-imputation would be
yet another e-rangement of more or less significant bits,
however iconic, indexical, symbolic they might be to you,
their e-mediate interpreter.

So, since we both know that all we will be seeing appear,
on our respective neighborhood screens, is more and more
signs -- as objectively physical as they are in their way,
it is only, or primarily, in their leading roles as signs
that we value them, is it not? -- so, if I call to your
mind in some fashion Our Own Lord Clyde, you will not be
expecting me to manifest before your eyes, anytime soon,
the full-fleshed element of his class, in the full glory
of His Aweful Presence, not by e-mail, nor on the backs
of myriads of myrmidons of e-scargot, nor by any other
manner of hyper-motic gesture, no matter what the arts
of my prestidigitation at the keyboard may conjure up.

So, even if I share with you a striking image, like so:


An image that so startled me, as if in response to some deeply hidden,
innate instinctual terror that rose within my ape-extracted essence
when first I happened to encounter it, just as if I had suddenly
stumbled on the aboding place of the beasts themselves, that
I quite literally g鐰elly jumped!

No, even in view of all that -- no, e-specially in view of all that! --
neither you nor I will expect so gullibly, at least, not with a bit
of reflection -- to see the object of all of these signi-depictions,
signi-dications, signi-fications, signi-vacations, and just plain
signs to quite so quickly find itself magically syn-tacked to
our web-wide-walls.

So, just what 'is' the relation of all of these conceivable signs,
but signs still possessed of a purely potential significance,
to that which we call "TRW"? -- no, not this TRW:


Now, you are just being silly!

Well, that is an addressee that will take a bit longer to address.

Until Then,

Jon Awbrey

Received on Saturday, 27 January 2001 14:47:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:36 UTC