SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, & RDF
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John F. Sowa
JS: The semantic distinction you are trying to emphasize
is indeed important. I have no quarrel with that.
I was speaking about the distinction between physics and philology,
figments that we fit to reality and figments that we fit into fits,
in the lay sense of the term.
JA: In that respect, notations that lead
us into oblivion are not our friends.
JS: I don't see a problem.
The very definition of oblivious.
Jon
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
- References:
- SUO: CG: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, and RDF
- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
- SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, and RDF
- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
- SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, and RDF
- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
- SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, & ReDeFo Logic, Or Not
- From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net>
- SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, & ReDeFo Logic, Or Not
- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
- SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, & ReDeFo Logic, Or Not
- From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net>
- SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, & RDF
- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
- SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, & ReDeFo Logic, Or Not
- From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net>
- SUO: Re: Logic, Topic Maps, & RDF
- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>