[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Comparable considered necessary

• To: simonstl@s... (Simon St.Laurent)
• Subject: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-2D10BB20ADF011D69D4E0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> from "Simon St.Laurent" at Aug 12, 2002 08:36:51 AM

Simon St.Laurent scripsit:

> URIs identify the untouchable unknowable reality that is resources; all
> we see are the shadows on the wall.

Well, really this is not so mysteriously platonic.  After all, when
we want to refer to Boston, we don't insert Boston (the city) into a
sentence: we use its name, e.g. in this sentence.  And when we
want to refer to the *word* for Boston, we don't insert the very
word into a sentence: we use *its* name, 'Boston', e.g. in *this* sentence.
Assertions can only contain names for things, never the things themselves.

-- 
John Cowan                                   jcowan@r...
        "You need a change: try Canada"  "You need a change: try China"
                --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Previous by thread: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by thread: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread