Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:40:16 -0500
At 09:21 AM 12/18/00 -0700, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>Then again, it depends on what you need from "ontology". If, as I
>think Martin Bryan suggests, you want a complete reasoning engine from
>first principles, then you'd better be channelling Choamsky and
>Wittgenstein and exorcising Deridda because you're gonna need a _lot_
>more firepower than constraints, address _or_ subject identity.
Heh. Exorcising Derrida is a lot harder than it seems - too many computing
folks seem to forget (or deride) that.
I'd love to hear more folks taking the contingent nature of communications,
including XML communications, more seriously - as an accepted foundation,
not as a problem. There's more going on than just nailed-down semantics
and well-understood content, and there always will be in any large-scale
Local understandings - as Walter Perry has made clear a number of times -
really do matter. Maybe it's frightening to people who want something more
solid to hold on to, but solid often seems to equal brittle...
Fortunately, I think tools will evolve to reflect this more flexible world,
even the tools created with 'one true ontology' in mind. Schematron's a
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books