[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] more on "subelement signicance"
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:57:50 -0500
I've never been able to separate "meaning" from "application".
That I think is why when people try to declare semantics,
they go "meta" and we get tools like XML Schema and RDF:
in short, an application language.
Just don't confuse application with truth or the universe.
By nature, it is constrained to a point of view and a scale.
Understanding that, one stays out of the MMTT traps. In that,
one finds the basement is actually the root. If you want
the most sharable root, syntax is where meaning meets metal;
Thus, generalized markup, the hanging man's rope.
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
It's not the "meaning of meaning" that gets me, it's people who think
they and everyone else know what "meaning" means. It gets even more
dangerous when people talk about "knowledge" like that. Then there's
that "truth" business... I think I prefer the syntactic basement.