- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:37:43 -0500
- To: "'Joshua Allen'" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, Bill de hOra <dehora@eircom.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
I don't expect them to endorse a point of view regarding that. I expect them to acknowledge that without a point of view, the attempt to architecture meaning is meaningless. BTW: Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) and later Charles William Morris (1901-1979), are normally described as the originators of semiotics. See http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem01.html Eco is a modernist. It is relevant to ask the author (the Cat) but it only gets one as far as one agrees with the Cat. Thing One and Thing Two have different opinions but they still belong in the Cat's bag. Start with the authority. Given the authority for interpreting the URI itself it the specification for URIs, I still think all we can say is that it names the assertion of a relationship, but beyond that, is a meaningless string. That is why I claim that when given an HTTP prefaced URI, it is always dereferenceable even if the result is an error: because it is syntactically processable. If the cat you ask is the address box in IE, it will do its best. So the interpretant is the Cat. len From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com] > 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. In fact, this idea is not really even supported by the originator of Semiotics theory himself, Umberto Eco.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 17:38:18 UTC