Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, XML DEV <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:50:06 -0600
But it can serve as a foundation for a discourse
which in process redefines the ontological instance.
That is how we evolve a system using standard models
as initial conditions. It can be an input and
not necessarily, a control. So, no not concrete,
but definitely mortar.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
I'd like to suggest system three, where enough creative destruction goes on
to permit reinvention where necessary to provide efficient provision of
results - and I think that's pretty much what goes on in computing. Some
reinvention of the wheel, some learning about inventions. Code bases
constantly change, though it may not be visible to users. And only
foundations (binary math?) are ever fixed in concrete. For me, ontology
can't begin to qualify as a foundation.