• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Syntax + object model
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 03:49:10 +0000
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1026-089EF5DB8D9611D7AA160003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <000601c3218c$ca9e83f0$6501a8c0@D89FK411> <r01050400-1026-089EF5DB8D9611D7AA160003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> wrote:

| Except that I get fed up with ontologists who keep coming round and
| asking why we bother with this mere syntactical stuff, and explaining 
| it gets more than a little irksome. 

What's there to explain?  They can't do ontology without syntax, we can do
syntax without ontology, and they can't stand that.

• References:
  • RE: Re: Syntax + object model
    • From: "Linda Grimaldi" <grimlinda@e...>
  • RE: Re: Syntax + object model
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: Syntax + object model
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Syntax + object model
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: Syntax + object model
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Syntax + object model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread