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