Re: c.d.theory glossary - proposed preamble

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:05:42 +0200
Message-ID: <408a11cb$0$15375$>

Senny wrote:

> Wat??? Ik begrijp niet. Ik ken niet Lakatos, von Bertalanffy, Barthes,
> en Canetti.

A search for any one of them in combination with say "proof", "system", "meaning" or "power" should provide you with some relevant, pleasant, and interesting reading.

> I wonder if I would understand your post better in Dutch.

Was my engrish ( *that* bad?
> There are a lot of funky topics right now. However, there are grains of
> useful ideas in each of them, and the trick is to find those grains.

Sure. As always.

> When it comes to the glossary, I was simply pointing out that the problem is
> a bit deeper than many realize, because most of us are used to "winging it"
> instead of focused effort. The sad result is that the longer we go without
> order, the harder it becomes to establish order. I don't think my point
> was overkill, either.

I very much appreciate your opening statement "c.d.theory lexicon overview" and I now wish I had stated that at an earlier point in time.

Now we should aim for a better content/overview ratio.

The content should be the result of a cooperative effort. As much as I appreciate Dawn's jumpstart list, it is now other peoples turn to provide some.

> I mean, even if we sort out database terminology, if
> we don't sort out the rest, the non-database people will end up ruining our
> good work. It's a big task, but not an impossible one. Whether we will
> give it a good shot or not is another question.
> In any case, there's no need to set the insanity bit quite yet.

That would be a first try for the explanation of NULL?


>>For the glossary I prefer inch-pebbles. Received on Sat Apr 24 2004 - 09:05:42 CEST

Original text of this message