- From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:32:01 -0500
- To: Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, SemioCom <semiocom@listbot.com>, Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
- CC: Robert Meersman <Robert.Meersman@vub.ac.be>, Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, Matthew West <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤ Arisbeans, RDF Lodgers, SemioComrades, Stand Up Ontologists, I have a sense that the recent questions of Seth Russell and Robert Meersman are pointing to a deeper lying qualm about the nature of our discussion here, that -- behind, beneath, and beyond the points of a "comment on style" (COS) that affect nothing more worthy of note than the character of one individual author-ship's peculiar writing affectations -- putting that aside, they cast to the fore a complex assortment of issues on which this group has long been divided into a host of different camps, to wit, the polyphemic protean topic that I will try, this time out, to express in terms of the following queries: | Why is it necessary to reflect on signs? | Why not just talk about the objects alone? | Why not just use signs without mentioning them? But I have deadline on another paper, and so I leave it as an exercise for the reader, and will return later on to see what solution ye hath wrought. Until Then, Jon Awbrey ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2001 16:32:35 UTC