- From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:23:56 -0800
- To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
I agree. The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" bring a strong philosophical connotation, which might not be appropriate in our context (even though this might get falsified by the recent discussion on what a resource is :-)). In particular, the primary meaning of a priori is "deductive", "relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions", which is not what we are talking about here. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:21 AM > To: Hugo Haas; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: WSA issue 1: what is a priori knowledge? > > > > I think that this is an excellent analysis. However, is it > too late to > consider substituting the word "prior" for "a priori"? I really think > that the meaning intended by everyone concerned is really > more along the > lines of "prior", and that using this word would lessen the confusion. > The reason I think this is that the term "a priori" generally > indicates > that something is known inherently or is self-evident. I believe that > this connotation is essentially what causes people to sit up and say, > "Huh??" when they see its use in this context. If we used the word > "prior" would it not serve just as well and alleviate the > concern? The > parties who are using web services to communicate simply do > not have any > inherent or self-evident knowledge of each other, IMHO. >
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 13:24:28 UTC